Hello again. I'm just wondering if anyone can find any problems with atheism? Do you think it leads to more murders, rapes, wars, masturbation, impure thoughts about your sister, lawyers, or other evil nasty things? If so, how?

masturbation, impure thoughts about your sister, lawyers

EGAD! Hopefully not all three at once! :eek:

I didn't make smart-ass, non-contributive posts before I became an athiest. QED. :D

The problem with thiest is that they believe one becomes amoral after deciding to be athiest.

This is far from truth. Most of your harden criminals happen to be thiests, rapists, incest, murderers, usurpers, etc.. is all learnt reading the bible.

After one decides to become an athiest, one does not drop being moral, if you were a criminal minded individual before hand, more than likely you probably would still be criminal minded. The decision does not change you, in this aspect. It does on some, it's really up to the individual.

BTW.. you don't hear of some athiest leader molesting children? do you?.

Originally posted by Adam
impure thoughts about your sister, lawyers, or other evil nasty things? If so, how?

Impure thoughts about lawyers? eeugh ;)


Still, I suppose that if the entire race followed one religion, in a zealous manner then the primary values of that religion would be the primary values of the entire race.

But the world is not united under one religion, so I don't think that atheism contributes to problems in any significant way.

The problem with atheism...

...is that atheism is still connected to religion. One must deny the existence of gods to be atheist.

What about if one never gives it a thought?

Q

This is something I mentioned briefly in another thread. There are very few religious people around here, and I was raised in an absolute absence of religion. To me, it was never anything more than a topic of occasional study. So, I am and always have been an atheist (a=not, theistic=religious). There was never any denial of deities or anything involved.

However, it does seem to me that particularly in places where religion is more prevalent, atheism is an active rejection. I think the choice to reject religion and describe one's self as an atheist is quite different to never having been involved in religion in the first place (like me).

The end result of the two types of atheist may be similar, but there does still seem a difference to me. The atheists who actively reject old beliefs or whatever seem, to me, somewhat petulant, like kids rejecting the authority of their parents and going out after curfew. Not that I have a problem with people abandoning religion - I wish more people would - but they do seem to carry that attitude about religions.

And then there are those like me who never had any contact with religion except as a mild curiousity while wandering about libraries. I think I am able, due to my past, to look at religion and other topics quite objectively, without the burden of the attitude I mentioned previously. This objectivity can, unfortunately, lead to those with that petulant attitude calling me a "soulless bastard". However, I do think that the clearest perspective is always held by those with no emotional involvement in an issue, and I'm quite happy with my position on these matters.

Adam,

Hello again. I'm just wondering if anyone can find any problems with atheism? Do you think it leads to more murders, rapes, wars, masturbation, impure thoughts about your sister, lawyers, or other evil nasty things? If so, how?The vast majority of atheists who have declared themselves atheistic have chosen such a path because of a deliberate conscious decision.

The decision making process provides a significant insight into the mind of an atheist. To deliberately choose to be atheist indicates that the issues of theism have been considered and rejected. But why reject something when the majority of the world population seems to openly accept theism? To go against the perceived grain also requires significant conviction and real a degree of courage.

The underlying basis of the rejection is that theism has no rational basis; it simply doesn’t make sense when there isn’t a scrap of evidence to support the claims. For any truly logical and rational thinking person no other conclusion can be reached since reason and logic depend on evidence, and when evidence is lacking for a claim then the claim has no value.

The conclusion here is that the typical atheist has the capability to think clearly, rationally, and logically. It follows then that if such people have the courage of their convictions in one area, theism, then it is likely they can also operate rationally when considering other aspects of the world.

Murdering, raping, warring, are all aspects of this world that detract from the value of life and are inherently irrational and are far less likely to be embraced by rational thinkers such as atheists.

Masturbation has been listed here as I suspect many erroneously see this practice as a guilt trip, and certainly as far as Christianity is concerned it is a sin. Masturbation is universally practiced and is a healthy release from stress and is of course very pleasurable. And for many single people it is a natural outlet for their evolved biological natural desires. Unfortunately those that believe their god might be watching and frowning causes significant psychosis, feelings of guilt, and anxiety. Do we wonder that so many religious fanatics appear to be so stressed out and that so many Catholic priests can become so deranged? Masturbation is a good thing – enjoy it.

Atheism is the next logical step in the evolution of mankind as science and technology increase our knowledge base and remove ignorance and superstition from the world. Atheism should be wholeheartedly and openly encouraged and supported.

Cris

Look, like i've said before

pedifiles go where ever they can get acess to children

There were (hope theres not now) lots of pedifiles in schools and in the scout movement

Both organisations are not tarnished by this but you tarnish ALL catholic priests which offends me. Not because im catholic but because the priests i know are ONLY priests in order to help people and are wonderfuly caring men.

Originally posted by (Q)
The problem with atheism...

...is that atheism is still connected to religion. One must deny the existence of gods to be atheist.

What about if one never gives it a thought?

Then one might (if one so desires) take up the label of "Thoughtless." :D

But we do think, and I think... that I know where you're coming from, Q, and it ain't a bad place to be.

At least some of the time.

;)

CB

Originally posted by Cris
Adam,
The vast majority of atheists who have declared themselves atheistic have chosen such a path because of a deliberate conscious decision.

Not here. Here, religion has been on the decline since maybe the 50s or so. I personally know two christians and one buddhist. The buddhist is an aunt. The entire family apart from her never had anything to do with any religion. It would be a conscious decision to move toward religion, as our natural state is to be completely without it.

Asguard,

Maybe I've overlooked something, but I don't see where Godless has specifically named Catholic priests as a threat. He may think they are, (dunno), but he has not actually said it here.

At any rate, anything is only an insult if you allow it to be. We do have a choice about how we handle hearing things we don't agree with. As soon as you have allowed someone the power to insult you, you have allowed yourself to be defeated.

Food for thought.

(And "food for thought" means you're not being attacked; this is a bit of friendly, albeit unsolicited, advice.)

CB

Nice post, Cris.

CB

Asguard,

Both organisations are not tarnished by this but you tarnish ALL catholic priests which offends me. Not because im catholic but because the priests i know are ONLY priests in order to help people and are wonderfuly caring men.While many priests are guilty of these crimes I did not imply that ALL priests are guilty. However, ALL catholic priests are now definitely tarnished with the knowledge that their particular profession is far from perfect.

Unlike other professions in which sex offenders might work, priests are expected to be above such things especially when the church has so much dogma against sexual activities. Priests also consider themselves to have been ‘called’ by God, i.e. have been divinely selected. Clearly that claim must now be viewed with significant skepticism.

Every Catholic priest is part of a group that specifically holds views on the sins of sex and the group must be able at least to practice what they preach. They even go so far as to deny themselves sexual pleasures because they are ‘meant to be’ ‘married’ to God. In short, as an institution they have put themselves above everyone else.

While I am sure many of them are wonderful compassionate people they must ALL bear a collective responsibility for the institution that they support. And when their superiors cover up illegal activities then the only real conclusion is that the whole institution is massively hypocritical.

I don’t know any Catholic priests and I am sure that if I ever meet one I will always wonder if they are perverted. Enforced celibacy because of any reason other than a voluntary choice because one wants to be celibate must necessarily create serious mental and physiological challenges – i.e. the choice goes against strong evolutionary influences. Combine that with the now open evidence that many priests cannot cope with sexual issues must give us cause to suspect every priest.

I have no sympathy for a group that sets themselves up to be perfect and representatives of an alleged all powerful god and then we find that are very fallible. They only have themselves, as an institution, to blame for their failure.

Cris

Adam,

Not here. Here, religion has been on the decline since maybe the 50s or so. I personally know two christians and one buddhist. The buddhist is an aunt. The entire family apart from her never had anything to do with any religion. It would be a conscious decision to move toward religion, as our natural state is to be completely without it.Unless you have disconnected yourself from the world, have never watched TV, or listened to the radio, etc, then you must be fully aware that religions exist and what they offer, right? Since you are on the Internet then I know you are not a hermit.

Unless you are a moron (and I know from your posts that you are not) you are fully aware of what religion and theism is offering. And since you have not been attracted to their offerings you must have consciously rejected them. IOW words you have consciously selected to be an atheist because of your ability to reason.

I think you will also agree with me that there must be other people in your country who also may not have been directly exposed to religion but are also aware of the offerings, but unlike you, have actively pursued such interests because they have been attracted to the ideas of the supernatural. Agreed? Their choice represents a different type of thinking to you.

Now I will admit I have been in a similar position to you since I have spent most of my life living in the UK where religion has been in significant decline for the past 4 decades. It has only been while I have lived in the USA (since 1996) that I have been made aware of the significance that religion plays here and the importance of defending against such parasitic tentacles – and that means a more active form of atheism than I suspect I would ever have supported in the UK where it isn’t needed so much.

But I believe, as an intelligent and informed person, you have made a positive decision to reject theism.

Agreed?

Cris

I don't see it as an active rejection. That would be like saying I rejected being a gynocologist because I'm not currently a gynocologist, even though I have indeed heard of them and know what they do. I was born without religion, never even had a vague notion of getting into one, and so never had such a notion to actively reject. The same as I never rejected the idea of becoming a gynocologist. I was born not-a-gynocologist, but since then have heard of them and what they do. It simply never entered the picture. But this I suppose is just my way of looking at things, which I know is not the same for others.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam
. To me, it was never anything more than a topic of occasional study. So, I am and always have been an atheist (a=not, theistic=religious). There was never any denial of deities or anything involved.

You’ve hit the nail on the head Adam, atheism is ignore-ance of Spirituality, nothing more.

I think the choice to reject religion and describe one's self as an atheist is quite different to never having been involved in religion in the first place (like me).

What people are rejecting are the ‘atheistic’ institutions who place themselves under the banner of religion, who, because they do not serve God according to the correct rules and regulation, are devoid of God.

‘Atheist’ is a description of ones spiritual state, which is ‘devoid of God.

The atheists who actively reject old beliefs or whatever seem, to me, somewhat petulant, like kids rejecting the authority of their parents and going out after curfew.

That is because deep down nobody rejects God, wholly, they’re just letting off steam, it may last moments or lifetimes, but eventually, if they are fortunate, they may get a chance to serve Him.

If that was not the case, they or yourself wouldn’t spend so much of your life thinking about Him.
Admit it, whether or not you believe He exists, He is the greatest personality in this world, certainly the most famous.
Only a complete idiot would not be at least curious.

What we call religion today, is so far removed from God, according to His own words, that people calling themselves atheist is understandable, but what they don’t understand is that anything we do which is not for the service of God, is atheistic. All God instructions are to be followed.

And then there are those like me who never had any contact with religion except as a mild curiousity while wandering about libraries.

But now you are curious….huh! :D

This objectivity can, unfortunately, lead to those with that petulant attitude calling me a "soulless bastard".

You are alive!
Therefore you are a soul!!

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Jan,

Nice post - a wonderfully juicy set of irrationality. I’ve missed you.

You’ve hit the nail on the head Adam, atheism is ignore-ance of Spirituality, nothing more. Having ignorance of something that doesn’t exist can’t be bad. It saves times examining irrelevant mythologies.

What people are rejecting are the ‘atheistic’ institutions who place themselves under the banner of religionPlease name an atheistic institution that claims to be religious. I’m not sure what you mean here.

That is because deep down nobody rejects God, wholly, they’re just letting off steam, it may last moments or lifetimes, but eventually, if they are fortunate, they may get a chance to serve Him. This is the essential essence of extreme religious narrow-mindedness; the complete rejection of the concept that someone might possibly disagree with their single blinkered narrow view. The arrogant idea that the religionist must be right and everyone else is wrong. Or IOW the complete lack of tolerance.

If that was not the case, they or yourself wouldn’t spend so much of your life thinking about Him.
Admit it, whether or not you believe He exists, He is the greatest personality in this world, certainly the most famous. I dunno, Mickey Mouse is pretty famous, and probably more popular.

When one is attacked it is normal to defend oneself. The parasitic and insidious nature of evangelical intrusions like Christianity naturally cause strong defensive reactions, at least by rational people who value their freedom and their minds. Like an attack of termites inaction results in chaos and destruction. A deep understanding of the enemy of religion is quite vital if the human race is going to evolve into something more rational and worthwhile.

The unfortunate waste of time we must spend fighting against the irrational fantasies of religious fanaticism, could have been much better used in pursuit of real knowledge through scientific research. Once again we see the disease of religion weakening the fabric of humanity in the hope of asserting its evil power.

Only a complete idiot would not be at least curious. Hmmm, Adam, I think you are being called an idiot.

What we call religion today, is so far removed from God, according to His own words, that people calling themselves atheist is understandable, but what they don’t understand is that anything we do which is not for the service of God, is atheistic. All God instructions are to be followed. Fortunately as scientific knowledge and better education spread throughout the world, the religious institutions strive desperately to evolve into something acceptable. Their struggle is futile since they are clearly entering the throes of their own destruction and death. We can only hope their screams won’t last long. If I could I would quickly end their suffering.

But now you are curious….huh! And, Adam, here we see the inevitable attempt at unsolicited conversion; the subtle beginnings of religious indoctrination. If you are not fully aware of the dangers of religion and make an effort to defend yourself you may well succumb to their insidious evil.

Cris

>>You’ve hit the nail on the head Adam, atheism is ignore-ance of Spirituality, nothing more.<<

and

>>What people are rejecting are the ‘atheistic’ institutions who place themselves under the banner of religion, who, because they do not serve God according to the correct rules and regulation, are devoid of God. ‘Atheist’ is a description of ones spiritual state, which is ‘devoid of God.<<


While you are free to make any assumptions about some sort of "god" figure, not everyone believes that either of these two things ( That being "god" and "spirituality" ) have never existed, and do not exist.

Secondly, I question your use of the words "Correctly". What exactly, is, pray-tell, the 'correct' way to be with God? Your way? Doesn't that strike you as a tad presumptious?

>>That is because deep down nobody rejects God, wholly, they’re just letting off steam, it may last moments or lifetimes, but eventually, if they are fortunate, they may get a chance to serve Him.<<

Now thats just arrogant of you to presume that, don't you think Jan? How do you know why it is that I rejected God? I don't believe you can, seeing as we've never spoken before, nor have ever met. You barely know the slightest thing about it, and yet you feel you can speak for me?

I could argue that the reason Chrisitans embrace is because they refuse to look at themselves positively. And because of this, they require an external source for their value.

Now of course, thats presumptions of me, don't you think?

>>If that was not the case, they or yourself wouldn’t spend so much of your life thinking about Him. Admit it, whether or not you believe He exists, He is the greatest personality in this world, certainly the most famous. Only a complete idiot would not be at least curious.<<

I would hardley dub the God of the Bible the 'greatest personality' in the world. I have more respect for a rabid dog than I do that Ogre in the Bible. Atleast the dog is honest with me for what it is. The God of the Bible condoned and commanded countless atrocities, and then tried to justify it as pure.

Of course, when one realizes that such a God is a myth, and nothing more, he finds no reason to be angry. I don't get upset because of something Zeus did back in Greece, do I? Of course not! He never existed! And neither did God.

And IF God does exist, he's shown a very poor effort on the part of a supreme being to reveal himself to me, or anyone. I would expect more from such an entity.

However, if you have some evidence, some proof that God does infact exist, then please, do share it with us "ignore-ant" people, hmm?

>>You are alive!
Therefore you are a soul!!<<

I won the Florida Lottery! Therefore, it must be true!

Sorry, but Uncle Sam requires me to acually show some proof. In this case, so do you.

Case Study: Lets call him Adam.

Adam grows up in an environment in which the concept of religion and gods never came to light. Adam became a well educated, critical, logical, rational thinker. One day he is approached with a theory. The theory is that the universe was created by an omnipotent being; a god.

Adam looks at the theory and his first question is, "Where's the evidence?"

The theorist cannot provide evidence and Adam simply places the theory alongside many others and does not give it another thought. He will, of course, add validity to the theory if any evidence becomes available, however, at this time, he thinks nothing more about it.

Is Adam an atheist?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
‘Atheist’ is a description of ones spiritual state, which is ‘devoid of God.

For you, perhaps. For most Atheists it is a description of one's mental state, which is; 'devoid of delusion' or at least devoid of that particular delusion.

That is because deep down nobody rejects God… If that was not the case, they or yourself wouldn’t spend so much of your life thinking about Him.

By this logic, if someone spends time thinking about Nazism they don't reject Nazism. Or if I spend time thinking about flying pink elephants I don't reject their existence.

Admit it, whether or not you believe He exists

Nope. Admit it, whether or not you believe, he doesn't.

The thing that I find interesting and curious is how people, such as you, come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable.

All God instructions are to be followed.

Which ones are those? There's a bit of confusion on this topic. Even amongst people who share the same religion.

~Raithere

Q,

Is Adam an atheist?Under the scenario you quote, yes Adam is an atheist. Your scenario is perfect.

It may be worth adding the current definitions of atheism –

(from the latest Merriam-Webster)

Atheism: 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.

This conforms to actual usage by organizations such as the International Atheist Alliance, American Atheists, etc.

The two variations are distinct and important. (a) Represents the scenario you have described, i.e. A disbelief based on lack of evidence.

The second definition is a claim that there is no god and atheists who make such claims usually do so by supporting the claim with evidence against a particular god.

Note that for (a) a disbelief in something is not the same as believing that the proposition is false where the latter is what many religionists think atheism means.

So the hypothetical Adam being a logical person is an atheist because he does not believe the claim that a god exists because there is inadequate or no evidence.

The theist sees the same claim, and says “hey no problem I believe that easily”, despite lack of evidence. This is irrational since to reach a reasoned conclusion there is a requirement for factual premises, and facts require evidence. To conclude otherwise is to conclude outside of reason and that is the definition of irrationality.

Hope that helps.
Cris

Chris,

The point I'm making is that "belief" never comes into the equation with Adam. He simply asks the question, "Where is the evidence?" He does not think to believe the theory or not. He simply puts it aside for further review upon evidence.

That would not constitute making Adam an atheist IMO.

Q...

Just curious to know if I’m understanding you correctly.

By setting aside the proposed theory of a supernatural creator simply because there is insufficient evidence, Adam is being rational, and only being rational. The same kind of rationality he’d used for any type of consideration whatsoever. An individual like “Adam” doesn’t think in terms of “belief” but rather in terms of “acceptable as far as we know.” The label of “Atheist” doesn’t apply to Adam because “belief” itself doesn’t apply. The proposed theory isn’t acceptable because there isn’t evidence enough to warrant any further interest at that time or of any kind from Adam.

Would this be a fair translation?

I see a fine line between what you and Cris are saying, but a line nonetheless.

Appreciate you bringing this up.

CB

CB

Yes, you've summed up a good translation.

Q,

The point I'm making is that "belief" never comes into the equation with Adam. He simply asks the question, "Where is the evidence?" He does not think to believe the theory or not. He simply puts it aside for further review upon evidence.That’s fine and that is atheism.

Atheism in its basic form is not a belief system.

What you have said is that Adam has considered the proposal and has rejected it because no evidence has been provided. In effect it is not worth considering further without some evidential support. He is not saying it is false. And he is not saying that it is or might be true.

I think what you are trying to say is that he is neutral on the subject, i.e. he has an absence of belief either way. Is that fair?

But absence of belief is the same as disbelief. If you are not sure if that is true then consider the opposites. The opposite of ‘absence of belief’ is belief. The opposite of ‘disbelief’ is belief. The belief can be one of two forms –

1. Belief that the proposition is true (i.e. a belief that a god exists).
2. Belief that the proposition is false (i.e. a belief that a god does not exist).

The proposition is not supported by any evidence in either direction, so the rational person cannot opt for either (1) or (2) since both would require evidence. And that is atheism – it is a purely rational position.

Atheism is (a)(theism) where –

(a) = no or absence of.
(theism) = belief in a god.

= no belief in a god, or absence of belief in a god.

Are we in agreement?

And Counterbalance I don’t believe there is a fine line between the positions here. However, I’m open to suggestion.

One could argue that this view of atheism is the same as skepticism and that would be true; they are essentially the same. Both are rejecting a claim because the claim is not convincing. Neither is saying the claim is false or true.

Cris

Cris,

(a) = no or absence of.
(theism) = belief in a god.

= no belief in a god, or absence of belief in a god.

Are we in agreement?

I would agree if you could apply this logic to other theories. String theory or Brane theory for example.

Are the theorists in these expamples "A-Stringists" or "A- Branists?"

Or so it would seem. I believe it was Diderot who wrote that whether or not God exists, (he) is sublimely useless.

To claim atheism as the natural state (via birth) and to disregard the processes of the attainment of knowledge (including superstition) is to equate ignorance as the natural state (via birth) and thus render knowledge as useless as superstition. To tell a child that there is no monster under the bed certainly settles the question, doesn't it? And it means that Mom and Dad will sleep well for the next few years because Junior's fears have been quelled by the definitive statement that there is no monster under the bed. Right? Works every time, doesn't it?

Atheism is a natural state, but to remain so objectivist as to expect mere factual statements to be conclusive in another's consciousness reflects in itself a myth about people, that we are all the same in our biological, electrical, and higher functions.

To take the examples of two people close to me:

• My father is an atheist, and one who actively dislikes religion and religious people. He finds Christians to be weak people who depend on God like an addict depends on his drug of choice. Yet at the same time, he allowed the attempted indoctrination of his sons into the Lutheran church and even went so far as to employ his paternal authority toward that end. Nonetheless, in his broad rejection of myth, he has chosen to define what is or isn't a myth based purely on subjective (personal) definitions. We'll get to that in a moment.

• My brother and I being adopted, we have different cultural heritages. His happens to be native American, and while the public school he attended fostered this cultural identity, and his education at Stanford came largely through that cultural identity (after all, he is that intelligent) via scholarships and a cohesive community, he actively rejects much about that cultural identity. Myth in his presence deserves active scorn, but selectively. As I said, we'll get to that.

And so we shall. A few myths to consider:

• The myth of the car (I get this one from Markale, and it's particularly poignant in Seattle, as transportation has become quite an issue of local politics in recent times.)
• The myth of the state.
• The myth of the President of the United States (myth of authority).
• The myth of the value of a US dollar.
• The myth of patriotism.
• The myth of familial obligation.
•*The myth of social propriety.
• The myth of artistic soul (e.g. music, painting, drama, &c.)
• The myth of right and wrong.
• The myth of men and women.
•*The myth of environmentalism.

Shall I explore each? It would be inappropriate of me to assume that any atheist does or does not understand the sense of myth in each instance above.

The myth of the car: The myth of the car becomes apparent whenever transportation issues are involved in social deliberations. It also becomes apparent whenever one is the parent of a teenager. E.g.--

- Why does any teenager need a car? It is subjective social conditions which dictate this, a comparison 'twixt people. Does a car make you cool? Does its practical or luxurious aspects form the basis of the teenager's desire?

- We have up here a growing traffic problem. Our highways can't handle all the traffic, and the local politicos are trying to blow mass transit out their asses, intentionally overspending and under-achieving our regional light-rail plan, and stalling on the construction of a voter-approved, 45-mile monorail. Furthermore, we passed a $30 car-tab law; this is intersting, since some people's licensing fees actually rose (grandfathered cars under the previous MVET). In the meantime, there is another myth at play, that the $30 law worked. My brother, for instance, "Yes, it was $30, plus a couple of fees." Well, that's funny, because what I remember you all voting for was that you would walk into the DMV, put down thirty dollars exactly, and walk out with your tabs. However, the whole debate points toward a myth of necessity. People apparently need cars to get to work. Hey, I've lived in the Seattle metro area for six years now, and I still don't need a car. What it seems to me causes the necessity of the car is the idea that people need to live between thirty and sixty miles from their place of work. The thousands of metro-area residents who bus, bike, or walk to work cannot offset the thousands of north- and south-county fools who foam and whine about traffic inbound in the morning and outbound traffic in the evenings. Furthermore, there's the several thousand directly entering the downtown from its western border (the water) because they ferry across Puget Sound from another county across the water to the west and southwest. The necessity of the car is only fostered by the necessity of living that far from your livelihood. When I was living in Salem and working in a pizza joint, I once got a call from one of our Portland stores, asking if there was anyone who could drive up and open their store. Unfortunately, being the nature of franchise, nobody on our end had keys to the store. What happened was that the underpaid manager, who felt the need to live forty miles east of town, got stuck in traffic on his way into work, and the other guy with the keys ... I'm not sure what ever happened to him.

The myth of the necessity of the car, the myth of the "classic" car, &c. ... my brother and father alike are possessed by them, but choose to look upon such myths as necessarily factual. It doesn't create that much of a daily moral problem, but by and large the result of converting fact to myth in pursuit of a myth-free lifestyle is just as religious as any number of churches in the area.

• The myth of the state: What is the state? What is a political map? What are the arbitrary divisions prescribed by people between territories? What of the motherland, the fatherland, the homeland? What do such myths earn us? Do I need to clarify beyond that? Oh, and these are rhetorical questions, demonstrating the sense of myth. Only answer them if you really feel like going out on that limb.

• The myth of authority: (e.g. President of the United States) There is a certain elevation of status we award to authority.

- What, for instance, about the assassination of a political leader is so different from any murder? In a truly utilitarian society, the death of one leader is inconsequential, and we can shift to the next leader as a matter of utility. But there is sentiment, outrage, all manner of of nastiness that such an event sparks in people. It's our president, for instance. Who cares, technically? We'll either get the bad guys or, as shown so far by the current crisis (a matter of the myths of state and patriotism), not. One way or the other, the world will continue.

- In the US, the typical law of a state dictates capital punishment for anyone convicted of killing a police officer. First off, why is this? That officer is no different from any other citizen, and that human passing somehow carries greater weight? And let's not hear about the danger a police officer undergoes in daily life. That officer chooses that path. For instance, if I choose to socialize with drug dealers, I can expect a certain amount of duplicity in people. If I choose to make my career dealing with duplicity and danger, I can expect a certain amount of duplicity and danger. Furthermore, the states routinely award police officers greater credibility than anyone else in a court of law, their badge apparently demanding it. As such, we see outrages such as Tulia, where hundreds have been sent to prison and 16% of the town's black children orphaned by a single police officer known to be corrupt who has failed in his accusations to provide a shred of physical evidence indicating the guilt of the accused. Or the Amadou Diallo shooting? Forty-one rounds? Hey, if you don't want the guy's hands to move, don't point a gun at him and order him to produce identification. Rudy Giuliani's illegal opening of a juvenile record in the wake of the Dorismond killing smacks of this myth. The cops assaulted and then shot a man to death for the crime of not having drugs, and Giuliani defends the officers' sterling credibility by calling the victim a career criminal and opening a court-sealed document pertaining to a never-prosecuted report that Dorismond might have committed petty shoplifting at age 13 (he was 26 on the occasion of his apparently-righteous murder).

Can anyone show an objective reason for the elevation of law enforement as morally and legally superior to their neighbors?

• The value of a dollar: If anyone can tell me A) what a dollar is worth at any given moment, and B) how they figured that, I'll withdraw this one. In the meantime ....

-Three of 'em gets me a loaf of good sourdough; almost two of them gets me two litres of Pepsi. Almost six of them gets me a pack of cigarettes. This is a fine way to measure it, but how is the cost of those items determined without another way to measure the value of a dollar? If I go to work for an hour, I get approximately eleven dollars? Or, if I'm Alex Rodriguez, I get two-million of them each month for the next eight-and-a-half years?

-In the meantime, the value of the dollar has an impact in real results, e.g. political decisions that affect people both within and without our borders. That is, the myth of this dollar's value has a real impact on people.

-What happens if, tomorrow, the nation's ten-million or more stoners decide to stop recognizing the dollar. "Hi, Tom ... what's that? A gallon of milk? Let's just slip in the back and you can smoke me out." Of course, the myth of the value of marijuana would change if we moved to the marijuana standard; right now a gram is worth maybe six or seven gallons of milk if we make the dollar translation. Can you imagine walking into your favorite grocery or record store and being told that your money--that is, your cash currency--is no longer any good? What's the value of that dollar then? The bottom line is that despite any mathematical formula (that no one person is thus far capable of working), the value of a dollar is, in part, determined by the fact that we all in this country believe it to be so. Go to any street market and listen to the haggling. When they're arguing price, they're not debating whether or not the hand-knitted sweater will keep a person warm, but rather, how many dollars that warmth is worth. In the empirical sense of comfort, then, we see a shifting of the value of the dollar compared to its real result.

• The myth of patriotism: I have often pointed to Emma Goldman (http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/goldman/sp000064.html) on this subject, and will do so again:What is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations ? Is it the place where, in childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be," piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to have wings to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother's knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests ? In short, is it love for the spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a happy, joyous, and playful childhood?

If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic, since the place of play has been turned into factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief.

What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.

Gustave Herve, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition -- one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it -- four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.

It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest cause or reason.

But, then, patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people. It reminds one of the historic wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said: "Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses."In fact, this myth is well-played by both my brother and my father. Each sees war as a necessary thing and finds history irrelevant. Anything, that is, to justify a good old-fashioned ass-kicking by the Americans. I've even heard it from these mouths that it is cruel to the internationals (e.g. Afghanis) to raise their standard of living by paying better wages internationally. (Given how little US commerce there is in Afghanistan, this point slips by the wayside in its immediate sense, but considering child labor in Nepal, labor conditions in Central America and other places that send us goods to buy at low prices--the myth of the dollar?--we might wonder at how better wages are cruel.) I've also heard it from these mouths that they (e.g. Afghanis) ought to be thankful that we're using our rockets and airplanes and guns to raise their standard of living. In this sense, all allegedly objective factors (determined in part by the myth of patriotism) reflect the necessity of warfare as the only way to get anything done. The idea that the poverty of large numbers of people might be fostering anti-American sentiment is absolutely unacceptable to such "objective" minds. The only real truth is that we're good, they're evil, and everyone needs to fall in step with us.

• Myth of familial obligation: This one's close to me. I've seen it wreak incredible damage on human beings. It has, to my witness, prevented the revelation of sexual abuse against children, overridden decisions made by an individual on behalf of their self, and ensconced ridiculous obstacles against human progress well within the conscience.

To start with subjective examinations:

John Candy in Only the Lonely (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0102598) has a poignant scene when, as his relationship with his overbearing mother comes to a head, he must explain to her that the reason his "no-good father" blew the Florsheim account was because she sat at that business dinner making anti-Semitic jokes in front of Mr Florsheim, a Jew who happened to be the one who would be writing the checks. This was an excellent moment in terms of this example; even I am taught not to contradict my Mother, no matter how wrong she might be. In The Lotus Eaters (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0107445), R.H. Thomson plays Hal Kingswood, who argues with his mother (Frances Hyland) about the fate of his father, whom Hal had always believed dead. Mother Flora has a stroke as a result of the stress, and the guilt of the situation is only compounded by the fact that this is his mother. What, for instance, if Homer and Barney (in The Simpsons) are arguing and Barney has a stroke? From Joyce to Bloch to Neil Simon and beyond, the mother-myth is strong, and even has its roots in ancient civilizations to the point that an unnatural devotion to one's mother is called an Oedipal complex.

At this point, if the notion of the myth of family is foreign to you, I find you both lucky and unfortunate. There was, recently, in the Ethics forum, a link to an ethical survey; one of the criteria examined by the 19-question inventory involved the different ethics one holds when the situation involves family.

Why, for instance, do the commandments demand that one honors their parents? To what degree has that been manifest throughout history?

What is it about "family" that takes precedent over "right and wrong"?

• Social propriety: Victorianism. Edwardianism. Puritanism. Why is it any more appropriate for a heterosexual to kiss in public than a homosexual couple? Hopefully such examples will suffice for brevity's sake.

• The myth of artistic soul: This one's particularly close to me; I'm not sure quite what my family recognizes as appropriate about my literary ambitions, but it certainly has nothing to do with that soul commonly applied to music and other arts.

My brother, for instance, has impeccable taste in music. Well, in rock and roll. Get him to see a jazz or blues show? No, way. While he denies the sense of aggression his choice musics give him, he prefers AC/DC, Soundgarden, Metallica, and so forth because they "kick ass". But it has to be said that way. You can't point out that it makes him feel superior, empowered, and aggressive or else you're just another f--king music-hater. Yet he won't go see those jazz pussies or the old f--kers playing the blues. Stevie Ray Vaughan wasn't good because he played with soul, but because his cover of Voodoo Chile kicked ass.

Movies? Sure. Eye-candy, eye-candy, eye-candy. Anything short of mass effects and explosions is a "chick film", meant only to be viewed as a concession toward getting laid. Theatre? Not a chance.

In such arts, it is hard to quantify his taste for comedy. That's something about acceptance, I think, since he only likes comedy according to two criteria (A) Is it popular? (B) Does it agree with what I already believe? I think he believes Seinfeld to be a documentary series.

My father, by some odd circumstance, has come to believe that music is an environmental factor, and should never be the focus of anyone's attention. He has an uncanny appreciation for Muzak.

But what is it about a painting that is particularly affecting? Okay, to simplify according to my experience with atheists: In that scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091042), when Cameron (Alan Ruck) is viewing the Seurat (http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues00/nov00/images/seurat_jpg.html), focusing ever inward on each point until the frame is filled with unintelligible texturing, why is he doing this? That is, what intangible sensation is drawing him to obsess for whatever period over what he sees? What subjective connection does the painting have to what is in his consciousness? It is the soul of the painting. And the lack of this soul is among the tragedies that I have observed, not only in the immediate examples of family atheists, but among those I've known in general.

What is it about McCammon or Bradbury that moves us so deeply? Randall Kenan? James Joyce? Joyce Carol Oates? How about Shel Silverstein? Anyone care to quantify the whole experience? What makes Emily Dickinson so easily-related? What is it about the written word, the tale spun, the fiction and the poetry, that keeps people interested?

• Myth of right and wrong: I should be able to stand on that and say, "'Nuff said." In fact, I will, unless anyone actually needs greater detail.

• Myth of men and women: For brevity's sake: The Battle of the Sexes. We might also consider recent considerations of the term date rape buried in the later pages of Goofyfish's prison rape topic (http://www.sciforums.com/f36/sf1aeb739f777509c60160fceff5801a1/showthread.php?threadid=6720&pagenumber=4).

• Myth of environmentalism: Quite frankly, if I ever hear how we're killing or destroying the planet again, I might bust a gasket. When entire nuclear arsenals are in the sky and plummeting back toward our doom, we can talk about destroying the planet. But will all the bombs kill the planet, or just what we recognize as life on its face? Short of that, however, pollution will not "kill the planet", merely the people and other living things on it.

I wouldn't worry about this myth except for the fact that I still hear it, and if environmentalists ever want to be taken as seriously as environmental issues should be, they should drop the histrionics and stop fudging the data. (e.g. Global warming; some of the most critical global-temperature data used by environmentalists toward the global-warming process omits climate fluctuations after volcanic eruptions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_222000/222437.stm)--e.g. St Helens and others--thus eliminating periods of data where broad regions experienced temperature drops of up to 4º centigrade; when you're dealing with averages, why cancel out factors?)

Now, what does all this have to do with atheism? Well, and it's only experiential, it seems that atheism demands a stricter objectivity in life than other ways of thinking. But given the number of myths that atheists blindly subscribe to, the criteria for excluding myths does, in fact, seem to be about gods. And, as we see at Sciforums, that atheistic rejection is primarily aimed toward the Abramic tradition, which the rest of the theistic world sees as just as whacked as the atheists tend to view it. Thus, broad rejections of mythical ideas are selective among atheists, who live--as the majority of people do--in ignorance of the myths they blindly subscribe to. Pick any one of these myths, and ask whether it's a factor in your life?

Or think of it this way:

• My high school was (and still is) settled on some of the best land in Tacoma, Washington, with a tremendous view of ... well, unfortunately a TJ Maxx parking lot. But yes, developers would kill for a chance to build condos there. Thus, what is most important: a peaceful, less-distracting, aesthetically-pleasing learning environment for upwards of a thousand young students a year, or the thousands and thousands of dollars you can make building condos and selling them without a thought to infrastructure, environment, or quality (as per the American way)?

Hey, there's a myth: The American Way. Anyone care to figure what that represents?

But there it is; the simple problem I had with my atheistic world was that there was nobody to share the magic with. It's a tragedy, all that beauty and beauty, being intangible, becomes a mere arrogance. I'm well aware that atheism isn't uniformly this soulless, but that's just part of another myth I have faith in, the myth of human diversity. I could reject that myth, but then atheists and all humans alike become worth nothing more than their weight in fertilizer for the daisies.

In the end, to be strictly objectivist, I can only conclude that the sample I have experienced in my life indicates that atheism is too clumsy in its rejection of the intangible, and too arbitrary in its acceptance, while also being too blind to tell the difference. It really does seem that the primary impetus of atheism, when identified, is aimed at a dominating religion--e.g. the Abramic experience--and thus seals itself primarily in that regard, and applying objectivity to myth according to a mythical definition of objectivity. That is, atheism is both arbitrary and selfish as a root philosophy. Of course, what one does with it is their own, but it's hardly a tribute to the intellect and morality of atheism when atheists say such things as the followingProposition: Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God...

Response: Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other.In addition to demonstrating an inability to communicate with one's human neighbors, what is the connection between (A) being atheist and (B) having enough knowledge to proactively seek people to judge? Certes, such a poster is not representative of the entirety of atheism (that diversity myth again) but what, then, separates the atheist from the theism rejected except a matter of labels? It is, if we explore further, the "knowledge" that Judge not, and ye shall be crapped upon. This actually reminds me of something I see on freeways, all up and down the west coast of the US, at least: traffic bottlenecks.

That is, there's road construction somewhere up ahead. Theoretically, with three miles of warning, X number of cars should be able to merge together and move in a clean flow through the bottleneck, reducing speed to 30 miles an hour in the interests of the safety of the roadworkers. We must understand, of course, that without this partial closure, you weill eventually suffer a full closure of the highway. Yet common-sense is not good enough for Johnny, who sees Phil race forward to get a better place in line, so Johnny whips into the closing lane, and races forward to merge in on Phil's tail so that the seventeen other cars between Johnny's original position and his merging point must come to a near-stop to avoid collisions. After about ... five or six of these incidents, the ripple effect has traffic stop-and-go all the way back past the original warning sign. So more people decide to "judge lest they be crapped on" and deem themselves important enough to break rank and force their way back into the line at the stake of someone's personal safety. The rush to judgement comes only because one judges themself that important. Washington, Oregon, California ... sure, we make fun of Canadian drivers, but come on, the drive east across Washington toward Idaho has one redeeming feature: if you hit road construction, you are statistically likely to be the only car in the line at that point. You'll see it in rush hour, too, people who are so upset at how slowly traffic is moving that they'll ask it to move even slower.

Just as people, fed up with a judgemental world, only contribute to the judgementalism.

Oh, yeah ... the judgement example comes from Goofy's Prison Rape topic.

The only difference I mark between philosophies is the results thereof. Certainly Christianity could bring world peace, but how many bodies must we climb over to get there, and how many ideas must be reduced to nothing? Will that peace come when there is only one person left standing? Atheism, by my experience, can bring world peace, as well, but the world has already rejected Marxism as "too automatic", which point brings to mind considerations about the subjectivities of liberty, the myths thereof, and how atheists do or do not recognize such conditions.

Incidentally, it is worth noting that my theism qualifies as atheism if we apply older definitions, Diderot and Spinoza--vital to modern atheism--were reacting directly to Christianity, and Christianity itself was accused of being atheistic in its early days for having absolutely no coherent theology.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Jan Ardeena


... atheism is ignore-ance of Spirituality, nothing more.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but I disagree. Perhaps you could tell me your definition of spirituality.


'Atheist' is a description of ones spiritual state, which is ‘devoid of God'.

It could just as easily mean "devoid of the tree spirits of the Great Gumzugwi Forest In My Back Garden". Your use of the capitalised word "God" seems to indicate that you attach only christian meaning to this matter.


Admit it, whether or not you believe He exists, He is the greatest personality in this world, certainly the most famous.

Maybe you mean Michael Jackson?


But now you are curious….huh!

In the same way I am curious about the life-cycles of dung beetles and the particulars of flame and wind.

Cris


And, Adam, here we see the inevitable attempt at unsolicited conversion; the subtle beginnings of religious indoctrination. If you are not fully aware of the dangers of religion and make an effort to defend yourself you may well succumb to their insidious evil.

I'm well protected from the evils of religion by my mysterious powers of Not Giving A Fnck. :)

Q


Case Study: Lets call him Adam.

Adam grows up in an environment in which the concept of religion and gods never came to light. Adam became a well educated, critical, logical, rational thinker. One day he is approached with a theory. The theory is that the universe was created by an omnipotent being; a god.

Adam looks at the theory and his first question is, "Where's the evidence?"

The theorist cannot provide evidence and Adam simply places the theory alongside many others and does not give it another thought. He will, of course, add validity to the theory if any evidence becomes available, however, at this time, he thinks nothing more about it.

The point I'm making is that "belief" never comes into the equation with Adam. He simply asks the question, "Where is the evidence?" He does not think to believe the theory or not. He simply puts it aside for further review upon evidence.

Exactly. I was born and raised that way, and I like it.

Cris


In effect it is not worth considering further without some evidential support. He is not saying it is false. And he is not saying that it is or might be true.

Again, spot on.

Tiassa


To claim atheism as the natural state (via birth) and to disregard the processes of the attainment of knowledge (including superstition) is to equate ignorance as the natural state (via birth) and thus render knowledge as useless as superstition.

You start off right and take a wrong turn. We are indeed born ignorant, unless someone wants to prove genetic memory to me. That, however, does not even come close to making knowledge useless. We are also born without the abilities to run and talk and such, yet they are very useful. There is no logical connection between the beginning of your sentiment and the end.


In the end, to be strictly objectivist, I can only conclude that the sample I have experienced in my life indicates that atheism is too clumsy in its rejection of the intangible, and too arbitrary in its acceptance, while also being too blind to tell the difference.

I think you are under the impression that atheism = a complete rejection of all spiritual and philosophical matters. This is not the case. I strongly suspect that there is more to us than the mundane, physical stuff we see about us every day. But I have no evidence one way or the other. So it simply goes in my Undecided tray, until I have some form of support for something. I tend to think I am quite a spiritual person. I also think religions are full of crap, and are emotional crutches for the weak and tools of power for the greedy. This attitude does not mean I don't believe in ghosts or pixies, for example (and I can't say I do for sure, these are also in the Undecided tray).

Gotta run, more later...

You start off right and take a wrong turn. We are indeed born ignorant, unless someone wants to prove genetic memory to me. That, however, does not even come close to making knowledge useless. We are also born without the abilities to run and talk and such, yet they are very useful. There is no logical connection between the beginning of your sentiment and the end. Actually, I think you've missed the point, but I'm hardly surprised at that. From the most basic lack of knowledge to mastery, the process must necessarily begin with a certain amount of speculation and one of the natural processes of the brain seems to be the speculation that, when taken factually (e.g. the monster under the bed), can become problematic. Of course, "Screaming Trees" is just a band name until you've taken mushrooms in spring.

But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that? The natural state is progressive through time. We'll assume, though, for the sake of your pride, that you've never had a fear of what isn't there. It must have been an interesting childhood ... no nightmares, no strange noises in the night.

In fact, I find your reduction of the scope of ideas at play to discount the examples included in the discussion to be quite indicative. Such as your earlier and still-running failure to examine the identity-politic of the native American tribes, or, in this case, the monster under the bed. Rhetoric is nice, but your rhetoric seems to be omitting functional reality.I think you are under the impression that atheism = a complete rejection of all spiritual and philosophical matters.It is the most prevalent trend. However, if you are merly under the impression that I equate atheism to broader spiritual rejection, you're not paying attention. You need not be under the impression, it's quite the declaratory result of experience as mentioned in at least one prior post.This is not the case.I'll believe it when it becomes more apparent. Right now, the reasonability of some of our atheist posters is both a deviation from the norm and encouraging; for instance, I've always gotten along with Cris, so far as I can remember. If atheism in my life looked remotely like what I've experienced while communicating with Cris, I'm sure my opinion of atheism would be different than it is today. However, just as one's Christianity does not exclude a person from human dignity, neither should one's atheism. Why, for instance, should I attribute the characteristics of the atheists I knew onto another individual?I strongly suspect that there is more to us than the mundane, physical stuff we see about us every day.It seems that the broader the implications on living choice, the more prone an atheist is to reject it. I know plenty of alleged atheists who believe in ghosts, and the primary difference is that the ghosts don't order them to doctrinal behavior.But I have no evidence one way or the other. So it simply goes in my Undecided tray, until I have some form of support for something. Oh, for heaven's sake, man, don't let our Christian posters see that. Here, I'll throw it out for you so you can think about it before they get to it: does that mean "God" is in your "undecided tray"? Think about it, man ... I generally think I know where you're coming from on that point, but someone is going to eventually hit that point and it might be too late to rethink that.I tend to think I am quite a spiritual person.I tend to think that I am, as well. It's the reason why I have chosen to maintain this less-than-demanding theology of mine.This attitude does not mean I don't believe in ghosts or pixies, for example (and I can't say I do for sure, these are also in the Undecided tray). It seems your undecided tray is quite ... limited in its scope of what is allowed to go into it?

Mind you, I hold with prior discussions of atheism at this website. If you're excluding God from the undecided tray, then I think you're going out of your way to discriminate against ideas you don't fully understand. By and large, the impetus is on theism to show the existence of God, but if you're going to accept other such subjectivities, we wonder why God is not on that list of undecided items. Of course, if we look to where you wrote, I'm well protected from the evils of religion by my mysterious powers of Not Giving A Fnck we can easily conclude a couple of things.

•*That this is untrue, as demonstrated by your need to proactively bash ideas. It seems that you do, in fact, give a fnck.

• That none of the rest of us should give a ... fnck ... what you have to say.

And as I tell other people who don't give a fnck about the topics they post in, we're always happy to meet you on that one.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

I think that we've let the theists screw this planet for long enough its time to give atheism a turn.

And what wrong with a nice harmless pastime like masturbation anyway.

And Counterbalance I don’t believe there is a fine line between the positions here. However, I’m open to suggestion.

Rare opportunity, Cris. Easy for me to understand how or why *I* see a "line," though I've seldom had cause to bother explaining it to anyone else. In the greater scheme of things this sort of distinction may, at most, be looked upon as a minor deviation; don't think a lot of other "non-believers" have thought such a distinction worth noting. And they may never "believe" so.

Clarity is good, so I'll give this some thought and see if I can't find a way to make this more clear--as I see it, anyway.

Thx,

CB

Tiassa


Proposition: Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God...

Response: Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other.

Leaving judgement to others is a moral crime. Why? If we left judgement to others, we would all be speaking Party-approved German right now. It's that simple. If I see a guy trying to rape a woman, I will not leave judgement to others; I will kick his arse. I'm sure some of you have heard stories of people getting raped while bystanders stand by and do nothing. Such weak-willed slugs don't deserve the air they breathe; it could be used by people who actually give a damn. A side point there: violence is a damn good thing under the right circumstances. (I can hear Tiassa asking "And what circumstances might those be?" Again, I have covered this extensively and many times over in other threads.)

As for proactively seeking people to judge, well, hardly. This is an internet message board. It's all about sharing information and opinions. Being a user of a message board, that's what I do here.


Actually, I think you've missed the point, but I'm hardly surprised at that.

Again, Tiassa, you are unable to stick to the subject matter and must resort to insults and mockery. This is not productive.


But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that?

I wouldn't like to fix it. If it is preferable, I'm obviously happy with the way it is. That's the nature of the word "preferable". That is, we are born as atheists. We learn, we suspect, we imagine. As we
grow, we learn to reason, to sort the wheat from the chaff. Some of us do, anyway. That is the natural way. Some have opted for an unnatural way, to cling to the chaff, to hold on to their monsters-under-the-bed. While I accept that some day there may indeed be some kind of monster under a bed somewhere, I can not define such a monster and have not yet seen one or even heard of one being proven to exist, so it again remains nothing but a mild curiousity.


We'll assume, though, for the sake of your pride, that you've never had a fear of what isn't there. It must have been an interesting childhood ... no nightmares, no strange noises in the night.

Again, you are making things up wholesale. Again, I can not be held responsible for the pictures in your head. Refer to my previous paragraph.


Such as your earlier and still-running failure to examine the identity-politic of the native American tribes...

I'm not sure I ever mentined any native American tribes. I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion? Very strange. If, by some chance, you referred to such in your rhetorical meanderings, then I probably did not not respond and instead tried to find a point somewhere.


Re. atheists rejection spiritual matters: It is the most prevalent trend.

I have not encountered such, ever. What I have encountered among atheists is a requirement for knowledge rather than suspicion. As far as I can tell, other atheists see religions and beliefs in ghosts and such as simply presumptuous, to define such things even vaguely when not having any actual knowledge. Doubt is one of the best things we humans can do, especially regarding each other. We should always question. Acceptance of reality, or likelihoods, of what seems to be the case, while still remaining curious enough to learn, while not introducing completely unproven and unsupported extraneous articles, is a mark of atheism.


I know plenty of alleged atheists who believe in ghosts, and the primary difference is that the ghosts don't order them to doctrinal behavior.

Atheism does not equal a complete rejection of the supernatural. It never has. It is simply not believing any religions, whether those religions involve forced beliefs or completely voluntary acceptance. I do not believe in ghosts, in spiritual remnants of people and animals and such. Hpowever I do not reject the possibility of such existing, because I have no evidence either way. I do not believe in any gods, goddesses, et cetera. But I do not discount the possibility of their existence. I just find it very unlikely.


Here, I'll throw it out for you so you can think about it before they get to it: does that mean "God" is in your "undecided tray"?

Yes, it means that. The christian god is in my Undecided tray, along with Thor, Shiva, the Rainbow Serpent, and honest politicians.


It seems your undecided tray is quite ... limited in its scope of what is allowed to go into it?

Not at all. It also contains Relativity, time dilation, brane theories, multiple universes, extra dimensions, girls who dig ironing, warm-blooded lawyers, evolution, and more. (Evolution in general looks fine to me, it's the particulars here and there I'm not sure about. I'm reasonably sure most specialists in the field are also unsure about the particulars, else why unvestigate it further?)


That none of the rest of us should give a ... fnck ... what you have to say.

Nobody is forcing you to read, and respond to, this thread. Since you are reading and responding, I would think that means you do give a fnck. You have free will, use it.

Leaving judgement to others is a moral crime. Why? If we left judgement to others, we would all be speaking Party-approved German right now. It's that simple. If I see a guy trying to rape a woman, I will not leave judgement to others; I will kick his arse. I'm sure some of you have heard stories of people getting raped while bystanders stand by and do nothing. Such weak-willed slugs don't deserve the air they breathe; it could be used by people who actually give a damn. A side point there: violence is a damn good thing under the right circumstances. (I can hear Tiassa asking "And what circumstances might those be?" Again, I have covered this extensively and many times over in other threads.)Is it symptomatic of atheists to play with definitions? I don't think so; this is your own difficulty, Adam.

To put it very specifically:

• Proposition: I will say, however, that there are some individuals who deserve nothing good at all from anyone.
• Response: Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God ....
•*Rebuttal: Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other.

There is quite the difference between the judgment that one deserves nothing good at all from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place. Tell me, Adam, is there a reason you cannot separate the two? Or is it simply more convenient?

After all, the judgment you have proposed in your most recent response in this topic is very different from the judgment you passed in another topic recently when you wrote, From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.I mean, you won't judge a man like Ashcroft because of his political assertions or his actions in public office, but you would judge him based on the fact that he's religious? Perhaps such judgment is acceptable Down Under, but in the United States, we're working hard to progress past such small-minded attitudes.As for proactively seeking people to judge, well, hardly. This is an internet message board. It's all about sharing information and opinions. Being a user of a message board, that's what I do here.Yes, and lacking anything of better substance, you resort to bashing and bigotry just to see your name on the board?Again, Tiassa, you are unable to stick to the subject matter and must resort to insults and mockery. This is not productiveAh, yes ... again, if you'd followed through the rest of the paragraph and the one which follows, perhaps you might have understood why I think you missed the point? Even your attempts to delve into that matter show that you're reading sentence-to-sentence, as if each portion of the written unit is unrelated to the prior, the next, or any other portion of the cohesive body. Given your refined literary tastes, I can't help but wonder how this keeps happening. For instance, the point you cited: But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that?

You responded, I wouldn't like to fix it. Now, I can understand how such a failure to communicate might come about, but only if we leave it at that sentence. If, however, you continue to read the paragraph and apply the interrelationships of sentences, you might have realized that it would be more productive to consider at least the next sentence, if not the whole of the paragraph:But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that? The natural state is progressive through time. We'll assume, though, for the sake of your pride, that you've never had a fear of what isn't there. It must have been an interesting childhood ... no nightmares, no strange noises in the nightI noticed that, of the sentences you chose to cite and respond to, the boldfaced one isn't there. Why is that, Adam? Could you honestly not figure out what it was there for? Here, let me throw a few dictionaries your way; these are extracted from OmniDictionary (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnidictionary/), which is a wonderful little toy I recommend for all Mac OSX users:From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fettling \Fet"tling\, n.
1. (Metal.) A mixture of ore, cinders, etc., used to line the
hearth of a puddling furnace. [Eng.]

2. (Pottery) The operation of shaving or smoothing the
surface of undried clay ware.

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

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fix \Fix\, n.
1. A position of difficulty or embarassment; predicament;
dilemma. [Colloq.]

Is he not living, then? No. is he dead, then? No,
nor dead either. Poor Aroar can not live, and can
not die, -- so that he is in an almighty fix. --De
Quincey.

2. (Iron Manuf.) fettling. [U.S.]

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

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fix \Fix\ (f[i^]ks), a. [OE., fr. L. fixus, p. p. of figere to
fix; cf. F. fixe.]
Fixed; solidified. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

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

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fix \Fix\, v. i.
1. To become fixed; to settle or remain permanently; to cease
from wandering; to rest.

Your kindness banishes your fear, Resolved to fix
forever here. --Waller.

2. To become firm, so as to resist volatilization; to cease
to flow or be fluid; to congeal; to become hard and
malleable, as a metallic substance. --Bacon.

To fix on, to settle the opinion or resolution about; to
determine regarding; as, the contracting parties have
fixed on certain leading points.

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

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Fix \Fix\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Fixed (f[i^]kst); p. pr. & vb.
n. Fixing.] [Cf. F. fixer.]
1. To make firm, stable, or fast; to set or place
permanently; to fasten immovably; to establish; to
implant; to secure; to make definite.

An ass's nole I fixed on his head. --Shak.

O, fix thy chair of grace, that all my powers May
also fix their reverence. --Herbert.

His heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord. --Ps.
cxii. 7.

And fix far deeper in his head their stings.
--Milton.

2. To hold steadily; to direct unwaveringly; to fasten, as
the eye on an object, the attention on a speaker.

Sat fixed in thought the mighty Stagirite. --Pope.

One eye on death, and one full fix'd on heaven.
--Young.

3. To transfix; to pierce. [Obs.] --Sandys.

4. (Photog.) To render (an impression) permanent by treating
with such applications as will make it insensible to the
action of light. --Abney.

5. To put in order; to arrange; to dispose of; to adjust; to
set to rights; to set or place in the manner desired or
most suitable; hence, to repair; as, to fix the clothes;
to fix the furniture of a room. [Colloq. U.S.]

6. (Iron Manuf.) To line the hearth of (a puddling furnace)
with fettling.

Syn: To arrange; prepare; adjust; place; establish; settle;
determine.

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

From WordNet (r) 1.6:

fix
n 1: informal terms for a difficult situation; "he got into a
terrible fix"; "he made a muddle of his marriage" [syn:
hole, jam, mess, muddle, pickle, kettle of
fish]
2: (informal) an intravenous injection of a narcotic drug
3: the act of putting something in working order again [syn: repair,
fixing, mending, reparation]
4: an exemption granted after influence (e.g., money) is
brought to bear; "collusion resulted in tax fixes for
gamblers"
5: a determination of the location of something; "he got a good
fix on the target" [syn: localization, localisation, location,
locating]
v 1: restore by replacing a part or putting together what is
torn or broken; "She repaired her TV set"; "Repair my
shoes please" [syn: repair, mend, bushel, doctor,
furbish up, restore, touch on] [ant: break]
2: cause to be firmly attached; "fasten the lock onto the
door"; "she fixed her gaze on the man" [syn: fasten, secure]
[ant: unfasten]
3: decide upon, as of variables in math [syn: specify, set,
determine]
4: prepare for eating by applying heat; "Cook me dinner,
please"; "can you make me an omelette?" "fix breakfast for
the guests, please" [syn: cook, ready, make, prepare]
5: take vengeance on or get even; "We'll get them!" "That'll
fix him good!" "This time I got him" [syn: pay back, pay
off, get]
6: set or place definitely; "Let's fix the date for the party!"
7: kill, preserve, and harden (tissue) in order to prepare for
microscopic study; in cytology
8: make fixed, stable or stationary; "let's fix the picture to
the frame" [syn: fixate]
9: make infertile; of both males and females [syn: sterilize,
desex, unsex, desexualize]
10: place firmly [syn: situate, pose, [i]posit, deposit]

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

From Jargon File (4.2.3, 23 NOV 2000):

fix n.,v. What one does when a problem has been reported too
many times to be ignored.



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

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01):

fix

1. <mathematics> The fixed point combinator. Called Y in
combinatory logic. Fix is a higher-order function which
returns a fixed point of its argument (which is a function).

fix :: (a -> a) -> a
fix f = f (fix f)

Which satisfies the equation

fix f = x such that f x = x.

Somewhat surprisingly, fix can be defined as the non-recursive
lambda abstraction:

fix = \ h . (\ x . h (x x)) (\ x . h (x x))

Since this involves self-application, it has an infinite
type. A function defined by

f x1 .. xN = E

can be expressed as

f = fix (\ f . \ x1 ... \ xN . E)
= (\ f . \ x1 ... \xN . E)
(fix (\ f . \ x1 ... \ xN . E))
= let f = (fix (\ f . \ x1 ... \ xN . E))
in \ x1 ... \xN . E

If f does not occur free in E (i.e. it is not recursive)
then this reduces to simply

f = \ x1 ... \ xN . E

In the case where N = 0 and f is free in E, this defines an
infinite data object, e.g.

ones = fix (\ ones . 1 : ones)
= (\ ones . 1 : ones) (fix (\ ones . 1 : ones))
= 1 : (fix (\ ones . 1 : ones))
= 1 : 1 : ...

Fix f is also sometimes written as mu f where mu is the Greek
letter or alternatively, if f = \ x . E, written as mu x . E.

Compare quine.

[Jargon File]

(1995-04-13)

2. bug fix.

(1998-06-25)



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

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01):

FIX

Federal Information ExchangeNow, the reason I'm giving so much data on the word is twofold:

(A) it's there, and I think the OmniDictionary (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnidictionary/) is really cool, so why not?
(B) I want it clear that I do sympathize with your reading error; there are many definitions of the word fix.

But you'll notice I even left out from the boldface a particular definition that can apply because it is labeled a colloquialism in the United States. But the fix we're talking about is the settling of a transitory issue in a permanent (presupposed or concluded) position in the scheme. In fact, there's a couple of applicable definitions I've skipped in there. But the point is that if you didn't go from sentence to sentence looking for something to argue with, you might, indeed, demonstrate better understanding of the points you're responding to. That is, if you had read the sentence you've utterly omitted from your response, you might not have missed the point. At any rate ... to move on. Again, you are making things up wholesale. Again, I can not be held responsible for the pictures in your head. Refer to my previous paragraphIt's a nice way of defending your position, especially when lacking anything better. But thank you for finally getting around to the monster-under-the-bed point, and still, I can only assume that you've never had any fear (or other emotional response) to what's not there. The previous paragraph you refer to provides a bland and reasonably accurate perspective, but does not address the issue of whether or not you have ever experienced this condition. Lacking any substantive answer, would you like us to chalk it up to another thing we don't know about Adam?I'm not sure I ever mentined any native American tribes.That's the point. I mentioned it.I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums.Well, if you'd read the point and tried responding to it, you would understand how it was relevant.How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion?That's for you to answer, since we don't know anything on the subject of Adam. But I will propose a couple of options for you:

• You weren't reading the posts you were responding to.
•*You don't give a fnck.If, by some chance, you referred to such in your rhetorical meanderings, then I probably did not not respond and instead tried to find a point somewhere.Well, in order to resolve that, you'll have to delineate what you consider rhetorical meanderings.I have not encountered such, ever.And that makes it so?What I have encountered among atheists is a requirement for knowledge rather than suspicion.I have encountered a desire for knowledge among atheists, but they're just as prone to going off half-cocked as anyone else in the world.As far as I can tell, other atheists see religions and beliefs in ghosts and such as simply presumptuous, to define such things even vaguely when not having any actual knowledge.I won't disagree with that. Yet, as mentioned, atheists are just as prone to go off half-cocked as anyone else. It's just the nature of which superstitions they invest in. Watch the posts at Sciforums; you'll see some patterns emerge in just about any poster. Some of these patterns are fundamental while others are merely transitory accretions. For instance, and to start with your next point:Doubt is one of the best things we humans can do, especially regarding each other. We should always question. Acceptance of reality, or likelihoods, of what seems to be the case, while still remaining curious enough to learn, while not introducing completely unproven and unsupported extraneous articles, is a mark of atheismI have often complained, of Christianity, that one of its primary faults is its presumption of the worst in people. That is, starting with the concept of Original Sin and working through the idea that humankind is weak and worthless and requires deliberate intervention (redemption through Christ), the Christians tend to expect the worst and most sinful aspects of people. After a while, this becomes a self-fulfilling expectation.

I see a similar presumption of the worst in people in your own posts, Adam. What, then, do you doubt? Is it a doubt you hold in the fundamental nature of all human beings? Or do you doubt the presumptions assigned to people? To believe in the fundamental badness of people is just as superstitious as any other presumption. Is it that you doubt that anyone else is as good and kind and intelligent as yourself? What is that doubt, Adam, and what happens when you apply it to yourself?Atheism does not equal a complete rejection of the supernatural. It never has. It is simply not believing any religions, whether those religions involve forced beliefs or completely voluntary acceptance.So the bigotry is a choice of Adam, and not a natural part of being atheist?Hpowever I do not reject the possibility of such existing, because I have no evidence either way. I do not believe in any gods, goddesses, et cetera. But I do not discount the possibility of their existence. I just find it very unlikelyYou won't find me arguing with this part. Well, I don't throw in the very unlikely bit; all things being what they are, it's an equal shot.

So, being that atheism does not equal a rejection of the supernatural, is it fair to say that atheism rejects the supernatural when it gets in the atheist's way? What is the atheistic criteria for when something becomes flat-out too weird to believe? Or, to be more specific, we might inquire of yours directly.Yes, it means that. The christian god is in my Undecided tray, along with Thor, Shiva, the Rainbow Serpent, and honest politicians.How does the word agnostic ring in your ears?From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, a. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.]
Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or
involving agnosticism. -- Ag*nos"tic*al*ly, adv.

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

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.

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

From WordNet (r) 1.6:

agnostic
adj : uncertain of all claims to knowledge [syn: agnostical]
[ant: gnostic]
n : a person who doubts truth of religion [syn: doubter](Again, from OmniDictionary) (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnidictionary/)It seems your undecided tray is quite ... limited in its scope of what is allowed to go into it?

Not at all. It also contains Relativity, time dilation, brane theories, multiple universes, extra dimensions, girls who dig ironing, warm-blooded lawyers, evolution, and more. (Evolution in general looks fine to me, it's the particulars here and there I'm not sure about. I'm reasonably sure most specialists in the field are also unsure about the particulars, else why unvestigate it further?)I have included what you have cited of my post in order to mark a partial withdrawal of the point. That is, I consider the issue answered quite to my satisfaction. It's as specifically relevant an answer as I've gotten from you in this topic. Thank you.Nobody is forcing you to read, and respond to, this thread. Since you are reading and responding, I would think that means you do give a fnck. You have free will, use it.I'll take that as an affirmation that we need not give a fnck what you have to say. Again, a specific, relevant answer. And again, I thank you.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion, but I disagree. Perhaps you could tell me your definition of spirituality.

Understanding you are not this body, but a soul, and you are part of the Supreme Soul, understanding the nature of the Supreme Soul as being spiritual, and without the interaction of the spirit with matter, matter is dead.
Heaps more but time is not on my side.

Your use of the capitalised word "God" seems to indicate that you attach only christian meaning to this matter.

It has nothing to do with christian, but everything to do with the individual. Because somebody says they are followers of Christ, does not mean they are, just look at the personality of Jesus and see if his followers try to be like him. Action speaks louder than words. There are professed atheists who are more christlike than some who say they are christian, even though they are atheist.

Maybe you mean Michael Jackson?

We are all part and parcel of God.
Micheals fame came about through his excellent skills as an entertainer, from a spiritual perspective he was awarded those skills due to his past activities, how he decides to use them are his business.
But no, I mean God, Micheal became famous in the late sixties, and though he has enjoyed a sucsessful career, his fame is on the wane. In 100 years time he may be completely forgotten. God has been famous from time imemorial and will continue to be so, even when He comes and slays the nasty-wasty demons to usher in another age.

In the same way I am curious about the life-cycles of dung beetles and the particulars of flame and wind.

Then my dear sir, you need to find a suitable message board.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Everyone athists are going to cause world over crouding

Because if theres nothing after death then why go there so its going to be the Athists who want to live forever, hence over crouding

To whom it may concern: I never mentioned which religious preacher was doing the devouchering of childrens sexual molestation. You got that from the news!!. I only pointed it out, sorry if you are offended by the newstories, of Catholic priests, however I bet there's more out there that meets the eye, hence the ones who have not been caught yet!!.

Is Adam an atheist? Yes

The lack of evidence is not the argument here, it is the lack of knowledge, hence if one does not know of religious thought one is an atheist!, hence we are all born athiests. To Christians the indians of this country were savages, who didn't know of god, were they athiest? yes, in there intrepretation indians were athiest, therefore they were thought of as savages. However Indians were not athiests, they had thier own believes, so this would make them pagans, right?

After reading several books, Tiassa for example, I defenetly learnt from him the defenitions of words, which have several meanings. No pun intendend Tiassa, I really enjoy your posts, however I've got to come back when I have more time.

Jan: well another Tony1 want to be!! completely dellusional, her zeal is showing up to the point of "stupideness"

Conclussions:

Hell my time is Up!!

:rolleyes: :D Sorry we'll be back!!.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
Jan: well another Tony1 want to be!! completely dellusional, her zeal is showing up to the point of "stupideness"

LOL!!!

Like you i have a point of veiw, there's no need for that kind of behaviour, espesially as i wasn't talking to you. :o

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Tiassa


There is quite the difference between the judgment that one deserves nothing good at all from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place. Tell me, Adam, is there a reason you cannot separate the two? Or is it simply more convenient?

Give me clear example of what you would consider worthy and unworthy of judgement, and I'll tell you if I can separate the two.


I mean, you won't judge a man like Ashcroft because of his political assertions or his actions in public office, but you would judge him based on the fact that he's religious? Perhaps such judgment is acceptable Down Under, but in the United States, we're working hard to progress past such small-minded attitudes.

Small-minded? Well, if you insist. However, I will repeat what I stated in another thread:


Well, I don't like Bush being in office either. I think people moving into public office should have to renouce all affiliations to religious organisations and political lobby groups and such. All agendas apart from those specific to their office should be set aside. This is not bigotry. This is common sense. I suppose, on the other hand, you might prefer it if Billybob Fenton, from a long line of KKK life members, got into office and started distributing leaflets condemning Africans as sub-humans? Freedom of speech laws would seem to protect his right to do just that.

If one pursues and accepts public office, one's own agendas should be of secondary importance to the good of the state and the people as a whole. It should be considered an altruistic service, to work for the people, rather than trying to get into office so you can force your beliefs down their throats. Put nice and simple for you: If you want to work for the people, your own agenda becomes less important than the good of the people.


Yes, and lacking anything of better substance, you resort to bashing and bigotry just to see your name on the board?

Is that sentence of yours not bashing? Again, I can not help the images in your head. Please show me an example of my bigotry.


For instance, the point you cited: But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that? ... You responded, I wouldn't like to fix it. Now, I can understand how such a failure to communicate might come about, but only if we leave it at that sentence.

I suggest you choose your words more carefully then, rather than continually suggest I misinterpret phrases such as "You're full of shit".

As for my refined literary tastes, I think I've mentioned before that I prefer to read plain old fiction, good stories. Swashbucklers and space rangers. I am far more interested in developing my own thoughts than in quoting the thoughts of others. On the subject of reading and such, have you ever read Sabatini's Scaramouche? Definitely one of my favourites.


I noticed that, of the sentences you chose to cite and respond to, the boldfaced one isn't there. Why is that, Adam?

Fine. The natural state, as you say, does progress through time. If you'll notice, however, that paragraph you singled out has no actual point. Have a look:


But if the "natural state" is preferable, how would you like to fix that? The natural state is progressive through time. We'll assume, though, for the sake of your pride, that you've never had a fear of what isn't there. It must have been an interesting childhood ... no nightmares, no strange noises in the night.

No point. Only a question, which I answered clearly.

Again, I would not like to fix (either way) the natural state. I'm quite happy with it as it is. As previously described, and changing.


... I can only assume that you've never had any fear (or other emotional response) to what's not there.

You make assumptions like that in every paragraph.


Lacking any substantive answer, would you like us to chalk it up to another thing we don't know about Adam?

Again, should I post a thread labelled "Adam's Beliefs" a week after I start using a message board, or after three weeks, or two months? When is the appropriate time? Please consult your internet etiquette rules book and let me know.


Re. American Indians: Well, if you'd read the point and tried responding to it, you would understand how it was relevant.

Then please make the relevent point, and I shall respond if you wish. Don't just mention them in passing, but make the point.


That's for you to answer, since we don't know anything on the subject of Adam. But I will propose a couple of options for you:
• You weren't reading the posts you were responding to.
• You don't give a fnck.

I will present a third option. You tend to ramble. A lot. You can run several paragraphs without saying anything. Some people like the sound of their own voice (or the look of their typed words in this medium). You rarely make points, but rather talk and talk and talk and then claim everyone else lacks points. Try, for once, just clearly stating your points, with reason.


I see a similar presumption of the worst in people in your own posts, Adam. What, then, do you doubt? Is it a doubt you hold in the fundamental nature of all human beings? Or do you doubt the presumptions assigned to people? To believe in the fundamental badness of people is just as superstitious as any other presumption. Is it that you doubt that anyone else is as good and kind and intelligent as yourself? What is that doubt, Adam, and what happens when you apply it to yourself?

Now that is a very interesting paragraph. Pointed questions.

First, about presuming the worst in people. I try expect the worst and hope for the best from people. I always get something i the middle. If people are bad, well, it's not too great a shock, since I viewed bad behaviour as a possibility. If people are good, I get a nice surprise. All in all it works out quite well for me.

What do I doubt? Let's take Bush for example. I doubt he desires only the good of his state and its people. Or rather, I suspect he desires only good for them, but a good the way he sees it based in his religious background. Maybe he sees it as good that all religions but christianity be expunged from the USA. Just a possibility. Doubt means questions, and questions mean vigilance and security.

As for the fundamental nature of human beings, please define what you think it is for me. As for myself, I believe in the good and the bad that humans can do. I believe most of us reside in the middle somewhere.


Is it that you doubt that anyone else is as good and kind and intelligent as yourself? What is that doubt, Adam, and what happens when you apply it to yourself?

Good? I'm not a good person, but I do try to be. Kind? Another thing I try to be, although sometimes it isn't easy. Intelligent. I am very intelligent, although admittedly not as well educated in many areas as I would prefer. I have read very few books people might consider classics, I'm only just getting started on this tertiary education stuff, and I don't know a spanner from a screwdriver (well, I do, but that's not the point). I know there are people more intelligent than me, or maybe they are smarter in some areas and I am smarter in others. That's the way the world works. There's always a bigger fish.

What doubts do I have about myself? This is not your business, I'm sorry. But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside world.


So the bigotry is a choice of Adam, and not a natural part of being atheist?

Again, please clearly point out my bigotry.


So, being that atheism does not equal a rejection of the supernatural, is it fair to say that atheism rejects the supernatural when it gets in the atheist's way? What is the atheistic criteria for when something becomes flat-out too weird to believe? Or, to be more specific, we might inquire of yours directly.

Either you still misunderstand atheism, or you are simply pushing silly points for a response. But since you asked... It is not about what gets in an atheist's way, and it is not about degrees of weirdness. It is about rational thought, reason. There may indeed be all manner of supernatural things going on. Or there may not. Without any evidence one way or another, there is no reason to accept either side as absoltue truth. There may be ghosts and goblins, gods and trolls and pixies. But since, to my knowledge, there has never been a single shred of evidence to support any of them, I can not see any reason to accept the their existence as likely. This has all been covered by me and others before.

Agnosticism? No, it doesn't fit. Some of my dictionaries mention it as specifically being a philosophy revolving around man's inability to know (the christian) god. The other half say it is man's inability to know anything save via observable phenomena. Both ideas I discount. The former because it simply does not apply to an atheist. The latter because we have imagination and deductive reasoning ability.

Jan Ardeena


Understanding you are not this body, but a soul, and you are part of the Supreme Soul, understanding the nature of the Supreme Soul as being spiritual, and without the interaction of the spirit with matter, matter is dead.

To put it simply, I don't believe you.


Micheals fame came about through his excellent skills as an entertainer, from a spiritual perspective he was awarded those skills due to his past activities, how he decides to use them are his business.
But no, I mean God, Micheal became famous in the late sixties, and though he has enjoyed a sucsessful career, his fame is on the wane. In 100 years time he may be completely forgotten. God has been famous from time imemorial and will continue to be so, even when He comes and slays the nasty-wasty demons to usher in another age.

Okay, I'm fine with all that. As long as you recognise the true greatness of Michael Jackson. :p


Then my dear sir, you need to find a suitable message board.

I was under the impression the "sci" in sciforums was a shortening of "science". This seems to me to indicate that curiousity is a good thing here.

Adam,

Hello again. I'm just wondering if anyone can find any problems with atheism? Do you think it leads to more murders, rapes, wars, masturbation, impure thoughts about your sister, lawyers, or other evil nasty things? If so, how?

Since Religion is based on Love, I would say that all the problems of the world is created by selfishness... not even atheism. Selfishness is the greatest problem. It hides the Love for each other... It destroies service... It creates ignorance...

Love,
Nelson

Truthseeker, I agree, selfishness is one of the world's greatest problems, maybe the greatest.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cris
Having ignorance of something that doesn’t exist can’t be bad. It saves times examining irrelevant mythologies.

I agree, but being ignorant of God is not very intelligent.

I dunno, Mickey Mouse is pretty famous, and probably more popular.

Er……. Don’t think so!!

Hmmm, Adam, I think you are being called an idiot.

How so?

Fortunately as scientific knowledge and better education spread throughout the world,

Hahahahah!!!!!

the religious institutions strive desperately to evolve into something acceptable.

Of course they do, they are not acting in accordance with Gods word, so they are devoid of God and therefore atheist by description.

Their struggle is futile since they are clearly entering the throes of their own destruction and death.

They are on their own.
When one is without God his struggles are always futile.

If I could I would quickly end their suffering.

I know you would. :D

But you needn’t worry Cris, God has everything planned and is wiping out memory of Himself as we speak, according to the desires of atheistic men:

…..The path of the Vedas will be completely forgotten in human society, and so-called religion will be mostly atheistic. The kings (government) will be mostly theives, the occupations of men will be stealing, lying and needless violence, and all the social classes will be reduced to the lowest level of shudra (4th class man).

Also read signature bottom bit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
While you are free to make any assumptions about some sort of "god" figure, not everyone believes that either of these two things ( That being "god" and "spirituality" ) have never existed, and do not exist.

Thanks....i'll bear that in mind.

What exactly, is, pray-tell, the 'correct' way to be with God? Your way? Doesn't that strike you as a tad presumptious?

Read Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Now thats just arrogant of you to presume that, don't you think Jan?

No!

How do you know why it is that I rejected God? I don't believe you can, seeing as we've never spoken before, nor have ever met. You barely know the slightest thing about it, and yet you feel you can speak for me?

Why did you reject God?

I could argue that the reason Chrisitans embrace is because they refuse to look at themselves positively. And because of this, they require an external source for their value.

Lets forget religous institutions, i believe they rejected God long ago.
I am talking about God.

Now of course, thats presumptions of me, don't you think?

Go on!!!
Live a little. :D

The God of the Bible condoned and commanded countless atrocities, and then tried to justify it as pure.

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise.

Of course, when one realizes that such a God is a myth, and nothing more, he finds no reason to be angry.

How did you realise He was a myth?

Do you often have less respect for a person you're not angry with, than a rabid dog?
What is the difference between a dog and a rabid dog, apart from one has rabies?
It is the use of the word 'rabid' that gave your anger away.

And neither did God.

Then why waste your time posting?

And IF God does exist, he's shown a very poor effort on the part of a supreme being to reveal himself to me, or anyone. I would expect more from such an entity.

One moment He exists, then he doesn't, make your mind up. :D

However, if you have some evidence, some proof that God does infact exist, then please, do share it with us "ignore-ant" people, hmm?

I think you're taking the
piss :bugeye: :p

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
By this logic, if someone spends time thinking about Nazism they don't reject Nazism.

I've spent time thinking about it and i reject it. :)

Nope. Admit it, whether or not you believe, he doesn't.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :(

The thing that I find interesting and curious is how people, such as you, come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable.

Common sense.

Which ones are those? There's a bit of confusion on this topic. Even amongst people who share the same religion.

Rather than ask the same old questionr ead BG as it is.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Asguard:
Everyone athists are going to cause world over crouding

Because if theres nothing after death then why go there so its going to be the Athists who want to live forever, hence over crouding

Could I have a toke off whatever you are smoking? Thanks.....

No, athiests might cause overpopulation because we are just so much better in the sack. :)

Nelson:

Since Religion is based on Love,

Did you grow up in some weird parallel universe where that was true?

I would say that all the problems of the world is created by selfishness... not even atheism. Selfishness is the greatest problem. It hides the Love for each other... It destroies service... It creates ignorance...


Well, yeah, but athiesm is not necessarily selfish.

Oooh boy, Jan is back and more irrational than ever!

I agree, but being ignorant of God is not very intelligent

Indeed.

Of course they do, they are not acting in accordance with Gods word, so they are devoid of God and therefore atheist by description.

Ah, honey, they are only athiestic in the old sense. The Pope is hardly an athiest.

But you needn’t worry Cris, God has everything planned and is wiping out memory of Himself as we speak, according to the desires of atheistic men:

Be quite nifty, 'cept of course there is no such thing.


Why did you reject God?

Never calls, never writes, completly ignored Valentines day....

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise.

I think Cris was referring to the Bible, not the Gita.

Originally posted by Xev

No, athiests might cause overpopulation because we are just so much better in the sack. :)

Damn right. None of that sin and inhibition stuff, ya see.

Damn right. None of that sin and inhibition stuff, ya see.

Yep. And we ain't afraid to apply science! And we don't have any of the little 'status of women' hangups. :)

Gloat gloat gloat....

Originally posted by Xev

And we don't have any of the little 'status of women' hangups. :)

We don't?

Oh dear, sorry for the partial hyjack folks.

The fact remains though...no 'sin and doom' hangups, no alter-boys, and the realization that this life is the only life we have makes us athiests better in bed.

Hey yeah! And remember how the missionary position got its name? We are also not afraid to branch out and explore....

Although the Hindus might have a bit of a lead in that field.

Also, atheists get discounts on jelly (not jam, you silly Americans), so we get more jelly, another reason we're better in the sack.

Two more things:

A: Have you ever seen a fundie chick in a halter top and really short cut-off jeans? Nope. Look at the stuff they wear!

And of course, the Muslim women really bring the 'scantily clad chick' ratio waaaaaay down for all thiests.

B: Note how cranky our thiestic posters are. Jan, KB, etc...it's obvious that they aren't getting any. Then note how laid back our athiests are.

QED.

Oh yeah, and it's obvious that the whole concept of Hell is a outlet for sadistic/masochistic tendancies. Athiests, of course, do not believe in Hell.

Originally posted by Xev
Two more things:
Have you ever seen a fundie chick in a halter top and really short cut-off jeans? Nope. Look at the stuff they wear!

No, but nuns are all major babes who wear black lace underwear beneath the uniforms.

Originally posted by Xev

Oh yeah, and it's obvious that the whole concept of Hell is a outlet for sadistic/masochistic tendancies. Athiests, of course, do not believe in Hell.

But occasionally we believe in the sado-masochism thing. :p

No, but nuns are all major babes who wear black lace underwear beneath the uniforms.

Adam, tsk tsk....no fair to kiss and tell. :p

But occasionally we believe in the sado-masochism thing.

Yeah, but:

John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Matthew 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Does not sound like somthing an athiest would dream up.

No, an atheist (well, this atheist) is far more likely to dream up things like gorgeous nuns in black lace underwear.

No, an atheist (well, this atheist) is far more likely to dream up things like gorgeous nuns in black lace underwear.

Damn right!

But, you dreamed that up rather than experianced?

Drat!

Unfortunately. :(

Ah, but now I won't be able to see a group of nuns without thinking of them in black lace and fishnets.

:bugeye:

I'll always remember you for that. :D

Now this is creepy:

"Have I found my way to get close to some women, a few? Yes," said Don Kimball in an interview with CNN conducted before Tuesday's verdict.

Kimball said women found him desirable when he wore his collar as a priest.

"I wasn't prepared for putting on that uniform, walking out into real life and discovering the number of women who were coming on to me," Kimball said. "I wasn't prepared for that. ... I think they were in love with the uniform. It's a uniform thing."

Egad! I will admit that the little sashes that bring out thier waists are rather cute but....EGAD!

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/17/priest.sex/index.html

Xev,

Did you grow up in some weird parallel universe where that was true?

No, I studied Religion.
Haven't I explained that? Haven't you understand? Then what's the problem?

Do you know how many people already interpreted the Bible in the same way you do? That's why we had Holy Wars, because they didn't interpreted those passages. But you can't say that in the Bible is written:

Galatians 5:13-14 :

"13 For you are called to freedom, brethen; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through Love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement

"YOU SHALL LOVE YOU NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

Well, yeah, but athiesm is not necessarily selfish.
I agree. But many atheists are also selfish...

Love,
Nelson

No, I studied Religion.
The Q would like to be there the day you realize how much you've wasted your time and your life in this fruitless pursuit. You could of course cut your losses now and avoid that huge dissapointment.

Or is that too rational. :D

Give me clear example of what you would consider worthy and unworthy of judgement, and I'll tell you if I can separate the twoI'll take a note from you and say that this has been covered. Here, I'll even cover it again: read the following section of my prior post as a cohesive body:Is it symptomatic of atheists to play with definitions? I don't think so; this is your own difficulty, Adam.

To put it very specifically:

• Proposition: I will say, however, that there are some individuals who deserve nothing good at all from anyone.
• Response: Unless I happen to be God I have no right to make that determination of my fellow human being. And, since I'm not God ....
•*Rebuttal: Well, I never understood that position. One, I'm an atheist. Two, I firmly believe it is not only our right but our duty to judge each other.

There is quite the difference between the judgment that one deserves nothing good at all from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place. Tell me, Adam, is there a reason you cannot separate the two? Or is it simply more convenient?

After all, the judgment you have proposed in your most recent response in this topic is very different from the judgment you passed in another topic recently when you wrote,

quote:

From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.


I mean, you won't judge a man like Ashcroft because of his political assertions or his actions in public office, but you would judge him based on the fact that he's religious? Perhaps such judgment is acceptable Down Under, but in the United States, we're working hard to progress past such small-minded attitudes.What, do you think the subject changes when you see text in a blocked quotation? Thus, to summarize, there is quite a difference between the idea that one deserves nothing good from anyone and intervening in a crime that is taking place.

However, understanding that the separation is not yet clear to you, as evinced by your request for examples, I might ask you, especially in terms of the prisons debate, what a man like Randall Adams, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death deserves? (Understood in advance are what you have explained of your sentiments on capital punishment. Thus, we might look to the conviction itself, set aside the death penalty, and ask what Adams deserves, in your opinion.)Well, I don't like Bush being in office either.Your direct answer lies in that topic. And yes, blanket assumptions such as you have posited constitute bigotry, and I consider bigotry among the most greedy and small-minded subjectivities contributing to action.If one pursues and accepts public office, one's own agendas should be of secondary importance to the good of the state and the people as a whole. It should be considered an altruistic service, to work for the people, rather than trying to get into office so you can force your beliefs down their throats. Put nice and simple for you: If you want to work for the people, your own agenda becomes less important than the good of the people.Electoral college aside, tell that to the voters.

That the clear majority of American presidents have had Chrisian associations is telling. I agree that one should think more in terms of the public's good than the good of one's assesment of one's own soul, but such is the way of humanity. To the other, if Gore had not taken religion to the level of political grandstanding, many of the Green voters who dissented from the Democratic party would not have done so; and in Florida, where Michael Moore notes threefold greater turnout at a Green event than a Democratic event (got that via e-mail last night from an old subscription to a newsletter in a forgotten box), perhaps some of those Greens would have fallen behind Gore and helped raise the popularly-elected president to the Executive.Is that sentence of yours not bashing? Again, I can not help the images in your head. Please show me an example of my bigotryPerhaps the irritation conveyed in the sentence might lend toward notions of bashing, but it does, in fact, reflect reality. Bashing is your term for your Wiccan topic, and I have, indeed, pointed out your bigotry in your call for prohibiting Christians (and other religious folk) from holding public office.I suggest you choose your words more carefully then, rather than continually suggest I misinterpret phrases such as "You're full of shit".Tell me, Adam, when you read a novel, do you stop and argue with each sentence as if it is a disparate entity? Or are you capable of carrying one sentence and its essence into the next, so that by the end of the book you have read a novel instead of several-thousand individual sentences? That's part of your misinterpretation in these forums. As to being full of shit, well? The specific distinction being that inquiries and even bashings of Christianity taking place in these forums center around comparisons 'twixt the advertised result and the real result, and attempts by posters to figure out why such a discrepancy exists. Certes, some posters bash Christianity without cause within the forums, but what importance does Wiccan theology play in your life? Why examine it except because Tiassa and Asguard mentioned it peripherally in another topic and Adam feels like bashing something? This is, as you've noted, a posting board for opinions, and even the harsh opinions are reactionary to something. To what specific aspect of Wicca are you reacting? On what do you base your need to bash? Your general bigotry against all people religious, as expressed in another topic and reinforced in the present topic? Fine. At least then we know. And we will address the topic accordingly.As for my refined literary tastes, I think I've mentioned before that I prefer to read plain old fiction, good stories. Swashbucklers and space rangers. I am far more interested in developing my own thoughts than in quoting the thoughts of others. On the subject of reading and such, have you ever read Sabatini's Scaramouche? Definitely one of my favourites.Can't say I've read Sabatini. But that you're far more interested in developing your own thoughts than in "quoting the thoughts of others" ... well, we can look at that a couple of ways.

• It seems you're attempting to exclude the thoughts of others by that standard. This indicates a lack of sympathy to the human condition and an arrogant regard for one's own station in the human endeavor.

• You are, in fact, considering other people's thoughts, even with the space rangers. You are considering, at the very least, the rights and wrongs of the story-world. That is, the raising of a protagonist to that status indicates a certain number of things. The hero is worthy of being a hero, the quest worthy of being a quest. That these ideas are not considered more broadly in the story is indicative of their rigidity. What principles are established a priori in any given story? I would, in fact, recommend Steven Brust's Taltos novels as wonderful swords-and-sorcery novels, but judging solely by your repeated preference for action, the fact that Brust crams a good deal of reflection and philosophy into each of the 220-or-so page novels tells me that you wouldn't enjoy them. Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes? Way too much extemporizing on issues of good and evil, but only if I consider what you've offered of your literary tastes.Fine. The natural state, as you say, does progress through time. If you'll notice, however, that paragraph you singled out has no actual point.Wow, I need to start diagramming sentences and paragraphs for you?

• The natural state of atheism exists for a short period.
• The "natural state" is transitory.
• Thus, at the beginnings of knowledge, when superstition governs considerations of the data set, superstition becomes the "natural state".
• What happens from there is a continuing process depending on each individual.
•*Not all issues of human recognition resolve into knowledge.
• These superstitions often persist.
• Where in that active process would you like to fix the natural state?
• Apparently at birth, in ignorance, unable to walk, run, or provide food for yourself.
• Being that you had not recognized the transitional aspect of the "natural state", I could only conclude that you never experienced the superstitious phase of human intellectual development, e.g. the monster under the bed, the visceral reality of nightmares, &c.Again, I would not like to fix (either way) the natural state. I'm quite happy with it as it is. As previously described, and changing.Yet you reject notions of superstition, and have offered broader considerations of superstition, but do not speak of superstition in your own life. It is a guarded response. Thus, are you then rejecting your temporal fixing of the natural state?You make assumptions like that in every paragraphWell, I figure if you had experienced a superstitious emotional response, you wouldn't be afraid to enter it into consideration. As the atheist has no evidence of God, so have I no evidence of superstition in your life at any point.Again, should I post a thread labelled "Adam's Beliefs" a week after I start using a message board, or after three weeks, or two months? When is the appropriate time? Please consult your internet etiquette rules book and let me know.If it suits you, do so. After all, you'd be following in TruthSeeker's footsteps, of a sort.

But by and large, You know zero on the subject of Adam was quite the hilarious response. Perhaps it does, in fact, tie into your literary tastes. Perhaps the concept of inferring your beliefs from the positions you state is foreign to you; we wouldn't know. But you tell us, by your posts, more than I think you intend to. At least, your responses, such as the above-cited frustration about an Adam's Beliefs topic, show that you don't think you're giving us anything that has to do with Adam. Are you intentionally misrepresenting yourself, then?

We know that Adam doesn't like to dwell on other people's perspectives, as demonstrated by your repetition of your literary standard. We know that Adam holds religion as a standard against accepting humans, as demonstrated by your bigotry against political inclusion. We know that Adam is either unwilling or unable to recognize identity-politics, as demonstrated by your omission of native American identity issues as related to Celtic identity issues. That is, we know these things unless Adam is misrepresenting himself.Then please make the relevent point, and I shall respond if you wish. Don't just mention them in passing, but make the pointHow many times would you like me to make the point? And you did, in fact, skip right past those points. Please refer to your Wicca Stuff topic, my post entitled "The story so far", your response entitled "Good grief, Charlie Brown", and my response entitled "It's an interesting position, Adam". It's all right in there.

I have to admit, though, I like your take on it: ... and I shall respond if you wish.

To take another term from you: Piffle. You didn't then, and insofar as I can tell, it was because you preferred to make a point that only holds if history has no relationship with itself.[qoute]I will present a third option. You tend to ramble. A lot. You can run several paragraphs without saying anything. Some people like the sound of their own voice (or the look of their typed words in this medium). You rarely make points, but rather talk and talk and talk and then claim everyone else lacks points. Try, for once, just clearly stating your points, with reason[/quote]Yes, minimalism is exactly what communication needs. :rolleyes: Maybe the phenomenon has missed you Down Under, but we call it sound-bite philosophy, referring to witty quips given by politicians to make them seem pointed and intelligent on the evening news. Bush or Gore? Dukakis or Bush? Clinton or Bush? Clinton or Dole? Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, ad nauseam.

I could, simply, counter with a quip:

•*You seem to justify quite a bit.

(e.g. concrete boxes on up to rooms; clarification of prison classifications; elaborations on anti-religious bigotry in the public sphere, &c.)First, about presuming the worst in people. I try expect the worst and hope for the best from people. I always get something i the middle. If people are bad, well, it's not too great a shock, since I viewed bad behaviour as a possibility. If people are good, I get a nice surprise. All in all it works out quite well for me.To the heart of the matter: what works out best for you. Goodness is a nice surprise. I think we see just learned much about Adam.

(short enough for you?)What do I doubt? Let's take Bush for example. I doubt he desires only the good of his state and its people. Or rather, I suspect he desires only good for them, but a good the way he sees it based in his religious background. Maybe he sees it as good that all religions but christianity be expunged from the USA. Just a possibility. Doubt means questions, and questions mean vigilance and security.Doubt=questions=vigilance and security. Very generalized. But the specifics of individuals don't matter to you?

(short enough for you?)As for the fundamental nature of human beings, please define what you think it is for me. As for myself, I believe in the good and the bad that humans can do. I believe most of us reside in the middle somewhere.People are people. And that includes me and you.

(short enough for you?)That's the way the world works. There's always a bigger fish.So of all the "natural" circumstances humans opt out of, bloodthirsty competition among the herd shouldn't be one of them?

(short enough for you?)What doubts do I have about myself? This is not your business, I'm sorry. But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside worldSo you never apply your doubts about other people to yourself?

We learn yet even more about Adam.

(short enough for you?)Again, please clearly point out my bigotry.This has been covered, repeatedly.

(short enough for you?)There may indeed be all manner of supernatural things going onHint from one who spends more time getting close to the "supernatural": There is no supernatural.

(I would elaborate, but you've already complained about my rambling, so I'll leave it to you to raise what issues I would have otherwise covered here.)Without any evidence one way or another, there is no reason to accept either side as absoltue truth.Again, agnostic? Or should I look ahead, and stop picking individual sentences out of the larger whole? After all, you have, actually, addressed the point.Agnosticism? No, it doesn't fit. Some of my dictionaries mention it as specifically being a philosophy revolving around man's inability to know (the christian) god. The other half say it is man's inability to know anything save via observable phenomena. Both ideas I discount. The former because it simply does not apply to an atheist. The latter because we have imagination and deductive reasoning ability.So Adam would rather have the label of atheism, and thus challenge the definitions of words? What are your dictionaries, Adam? I do believe I posted mine. But I'll remind you of one of those definitions specifically:Agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.Now, aren't you the one who was insisting on older definitions of words? Pagan comes to mind.

So is it that you're unwilling or unable to read my posts before responding to them?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
By this logic, if someone spends time thinking about Nazism they don't reject Nazism.
I've spent time thinking about it and i reject it. :)

You miss the point. You made the point that "deep down nobody rejects God" because if they did they "wouldn't spend so much of your life thinking about Him". I was pointing out your faulty logic. Just because one thinks about a subject doesn't make that subject real or mean that the subject is accepted by the person thinking about it.

Nope. Admit it, whether or not you believe, he doesn't.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :(

It's really difficult to have a debate with a transcendentalist.

The thing that I find interesting and curious is how people, such as you, come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable.
Common sense.

Common sense would indicate that the Sun revolves around the Earth yet this is not so. You need a bit more explanation than that.

Which ones are those? There's a bit of confusion on this topic. Even amongst people who share the same religion.
Rather than ask the same old question read BG as it is.

You constantly refer people to the BG as if it were an answer to specific questions. Do you not know the answers yourself or are you just lazy?

I have read the BG and find it entirely unimpressive in it's explanation of the world. I find nothing in it to recommend it over any other ancient text as far as truth is concerned. A bunch of poorly reasoned transcendental philosophy and circular logic.

~Raithere

Tiassa

Using the example you cited, Ashcroft and all. Should his activities be curtailed because of his beliefs? Or, using what ahs been said before, does he: A) deserve punishment; or B) deserve nothing good from anyone?

Answer: neither. There should be legsilation in place so that upon entering public office and executing that office's duties, any indidvidual, regardless of their beliefs, performs the duties of that office without any concern (regarding performance of official duties) other than the welfare of the state and its people.

You brought up Bush. I said I don't like him being in office either. I would also dislike Idi Amin being in office, or Paul Rubin, or the local leader of the Men Must Die feminism coalition. It is not small-minded, as you like to say, to prefer that a rule be set in place which governs the external infleunces which might act upon one's performance of offical duties. It seems to me that such a rule, or set of rules, might be conducive to the equitable running of a state.


I agree that one should think more in terms of the public's good than the good of one's assesment of one's own soul, but such is the way of humanity.

So, we should just allow all "human" behaviour in public office?


Perhaps the irritation conveyed in the sentence might lend toward notions of bashing, but it does, in fact, reflect reality. Bashing is your term for your Wiccan topic, and I have, indeed, pointed out your bigotry in your call for prohibiting Christians (and other religious folk) from holding public office.

I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office. I want the state and its people protected from anyone who would use that office to further their own personal desires.


Your general bigotry against all people religious, as expressed in another topic and reinforced in the present topic?

My aunt is buddhist, my ex-girlfriend is christian. The only thing resembling bigotry I apply to them is a bit of loathing toward my ex. Again, I would suggest you don't know my thoughts or motives and are assuming much.


It seems you're attempting to exclude the thoughts of others by that standard. This indicates a lack of sympathy to the human condition and an arrogant regard for one's own station in the human endeavor.

Not at all. The thoughts of others are considered. owever, my own thoughts are more improtant because they are mine. I would expect your own thoughts to be as important to you, Ashcroft's to be as important to him, et cetera. I can not possibly have a lack of sympathy for the human condition since I am human, and the human condition is my condition.

I prefer action over philosophy in books? Read Scaramouche. A nice mix of the two. 100% about "the human condition". Reminds me, I have a book called The Human Condition somewhere.

Superstition does not become the natural state. The natural state is not superstition, but to have superstitions and then to sort the wheat from the chaff. To learn and grow is the natural state in this regard. That process of learning, changing, and sorting the wheat from the chaff is what should be fixed in place as the natural state, if for some reason it is considered not already.

As for superstition in my own life, it is not a guarded secret or anything. For several months when I was very young I had a recurring nightmare about brain-eating zombies after some older idiot subjected me to some horrible B-grade horror movie. However, I must point out that even in those nightmares my relatives and I took on the duty of being excessively violent zombie-slayers, using chainsaws and cars and such to deal with the problem. I believe I may have seen the ghost of my grandmother just after she died 2,000 km away, but I admit it may simply have been my imagination, or some subconscious link that we humans have yet to explain, or any number of things other than a ghost.


At least, your responses, such as the above-cited frustration about an Adam's Beliefs topic, show that you don't think you're giving us anything that has to do with Adam. Are you intentionally misrepresenting yourself, then?

I am neither deliberately representing nor misrepresenting myself. Merely discussing things. To represent or misrepresent myself, I would be the subject. I am not.

My mention of my literary standards has only ever been in response to other peoples' comments regarding books and such.


We know that Adam holds religion as a standard against accepting humans, as demonstrated by your bigotry against political inclusion.

No, you don't know that. What you know, if you actually read my posts, is that I hold a single standard for all humans, even atheists. An atheist, too, should be scrutinised while serving a public office. So should a buddhist, a member of the Men Must Die lobby, or a cow.


To the heart of the matter: what works out best for you. Goodness is a nice surprise. I think we see just learned much about Adam.

No, you learned one thing. And does this mean you object to the needs of the individual?


So of all the "natural" circumstances humans opt out of, bloodthirsty competition among the herd shouldn't be one of them?

Please explain the relevance of this question. Did I ever say we should dismiss or retain bloodthirsty competition?


So you never apply your doubts about other people to yourself?

I repeat: "But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside world."

Natural, supernatural, whatever. A term to describe things unproven, ghosts and psychic powers and all. Doesn't bother me really which term you apply to it.

What are my dictionaries? Apart from the usual web resources, I generally use: Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Pears, MacMillan.

Jan,

Read Bhagavad Gita as it is.

Ah yes, the infamous " My-View ". I could also ask the 1200 different types of Chrisitan doctrines about what they think of these text, Then I could ask all the Wiccans, the New Agers, the Muslims, the Jews, The Hindu's, etc...

My point: Your one of millions of different prespectives on God, with it's own little list of right and wrongs and do's and do nots.

Why should I take your view over everyone elses?




No!

I think you are

Why did you reject God?

I reject God for the very reason because I'm writing it here. Christians would have me believe that God is concerned with own well-being of all of his creatures, yet doesn't seem to go out of his way to give anyone a REASON to believe. ( With the exception, of course, of the whole hell-fire bit, but then I wouldn't even want to serve such an Ogre )

In truth, my reasons for rejecting God is a long story. BUT, I would be happy to post such a story, if you really wanted to hear it.

Lets forget religous institutions, i believe they rejected God long ago.

Oh my goodness. Reject religous institutions, because they're not talking about God?

While I'm laughing at such a prospect, I have to ask you, again: Why are you right, and they are all wrong?

Go on!!! Live a little

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if I am to infer that you mean for me to go ahead and make presumptions, I'd rather not. I've found doing such a thing has aweful results, and so I choose to keep an open mind about people.

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise.

Your awefully good at making assumptions. Wanna acually throw some evidence in here?

Do you often have less respect for a person you're not angry with, than a rabid dog? What is the difference between a dog and a rabid dog, apart from one has rabies? It is the use of the word 'rabid' that gave your anger away.

Well, you did get me there. My use of the word rabid was to illustrate violent tendencies, rather than an acually diease. That was my error, and I apologize.

However, I would like to explain why it is I am angry at religon. I'm angry it because it teachs intolerance. The Bible has many verses ( Which I would be more than happy to qoute for you, just dare me. Go on, dare me. ) that dehumanizes people and teachs you that your allowed to treat them awefully. It is responsible for the tens of thousands of lives in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the middle east, Sept. 11, Northern Ireland, need I go on?

Based on these horrors, I figure the world would be better off without the dogamtic thinking of religion.

Then why waste your time posting?

Honestly, and I admit this is really weak: To feel validated

I live in a predominatly Southern Baptist community. My parents are baptists, I goto a Chrisitan private school ( It's either that or the public schools, and I'll be damned if I ever set foot in the high school again ) and my beloved is a born-again Chrisitan.

My parents think I'm in denial, nobody knows about it at my school ( for obvious reasons ) and my g/f is extremely tolerant. I'm so lucky to have her :o

So naturally, I'm sorta lonely here. It's forums like these that remind me that I'm not a bad person =\

One moment He exists, then he doesn't, make your mind up.

I never asserted that a God existed. Could you please show me where I did?



I think you're taking the

Could you please reiterate this? I didn't understand what you were saying.

Until next time

Jan,

I agree, but being ignorant of God is not very intelligent. There are millions of fantasy ideas lurking in fiction literature across the world. I have read some of them, but I am easily ignorant of most of them. The fantasy concept of God is just one more fantasy that has equal irrelevance to all the other fantasies.

Read Bhagavad Gita as it is. There is much of value that many people could learn from the gita but it has more relevance for mankind if the references to god are omitted. While my mediation programme is entirely based on the gita it is also quite independent of any need for the existence of gods or spirituality.

Understand the nature of God by reading BG as it is, you will begin to realise. The God of the gita is really quite different to that of the Christian faith, and I doubt many if anyone here will take time out to read the gita. So your answer here is not really very helpful to anyone without some knowledge of the gita story.

How did you realise He was a myth? I suggest because he is a concept imagined by mankind as opposed to something that was detected or observed. The term fantasy is more appropriate than myth, but most of the earlier fantasies take the form of mythological stories that the earlier primitive peoples would find memorable.

The thing that I find interesting and curious is how people, such as you, come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable.

Common sense.And in practice many things that are termed common sense are quite erroneous. Much of science tends to defy common sense but is nevertheless quite true. What you are really doing is using dubious perceptions to deduce something that appears to explain what you observe whether it is true or not.

Cris

A tad funny really. When you get right down to it, after all the rhetoric and nonsense, the christian mythology is no more valid or realistic than H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories or Peter Pan. There is simply no logical difference.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
Ah yes, the infamous " My-View ". I could also ask the 1200 different types of Chrisitan doctrines about what they think of these text, Then I could ask all the Wiccans, the New Agers, the Muslims, the Jews, The Hindu's, etc...

The Bhagavad Gita is superior in that it is non-sectarian and that it was spoken by God Himself.

My point: Your one of millions of different prespectives on God, with it's own little list of right and wrongs and do's and do nots.

And my point is, understand God from God Himself.

Why should I take your view over everyone elses?

Don’t take my view, develop your own view.

Christians would have me believe that God is concerned with own well-being of all of his creatures, yet doesn't seem to go out of his way to give anyone a REASON to believe.

Don’t worry about what christians say, some may be God-conscious and some not, but the title ‘Christian’ does not make the person God-conscious.
Human nature, has a lot to do with attraction, for people to wholeheartedley take to something, there has to be some level of attraction, this makes the human, especially in this time, vunerable.
I request you to try and understand, even a little, the ‘Bhagavad Gita As It Is,’ and through that you will have some idea of the nature of God.
Why come to such a dead end conclusion, when at the moment your knowledge of God is seriously limited, at least give yourself the chance to understand, before you lose your precious life, which is destined to happen.

( With the exception, of course, of the whole hell-fire bit, but then I wouldn't even want to serve such an Ogre )

This is the material world, this means it is relative. On the one hand we see in the western world fabulous wealth, a millionaire on every corner, (probably a little exajurated) new billionaires popping up as we speak, then in Africa we see people living in sub-human conditions, eating probably in some cases on a fortnightly basis, drinking dirty polluted water, when they can get it. And that’s just on this planet.

The universe is vast beyond our calculation and understanding, there are innumerable planets, and according to vedic literature some of these planets are heavenly and some are hellish, the idea is not much different than the duality I described within this planet.
So if you believe God is a ogre, then do you believe that the rich and powerful governments, including the US past and present are ogres?

In truth, my reasons for rejecting God is a long story. BUT, I would be happy to post such a story, if you really wanted to hear it.

Yes!
If you think it is too long for the thread, then post it to me personally.

Oh my goodness. Reject religous institutions, because they're not talking about God?

OK!
Somewhere in the bible it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as it he were a woman, or in other words homosexuality is offensive to God.
Now we see where homosexuals are being ordained as preists, now put aside any thoughts of personal prejudice, if there are any, what does that tell you about the ‘church,’ and its relationship with God?

While I'm laughing at such a prospect, I have to ask you, again: Why are you right, and they are all wrong?

It is not a matter of ‘I’m right,’ it is a matter of simple deduction that even a child can do.

Your awefully good at making assumptions. Wanna acually throw some evidence in here?

What evidence do you require?

That was my error, and I apologize.

No need to, we all make errors and God knows this perfectly.

I'm angry it because it teachs intolerance.

Seeing as you are familiar with the bible how is ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ intolerance.
It is because of a lack of these qualities why intolerance occurs, just think about it.

It is responsible for the tens of thousands of lives in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the middle east, Sept. 11, Northern Ireland, need I go on?

It is not religion that causes these atrocities, it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust, greed and envy amongst human beings, that causes these things, as I stated earlier.
This part of sci-forum is labelled ‘religion,’ but where is the religion on this board, it is not the cause of this board, it is lack of religion that is the cause.

Could you please reiterate this? I didn't understand what you were saying.

Just an old English expression which could mean ‘your having me on’ or ‘you can’t be serious.’

I know, crap explanation but I hope you understand.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Adam
Answer: neither. There should be legsilation in place so that upon entering public office and executing that office's duties, any indidvidual, regardless of their beliefs, performs the duties of that office without any concern (regarding performance of official duties) other than the welfare of the state and its people.

You brought up Bush. I said I don't like him being in office either. I would also dislike Idi Amin being in office, or Paul Rubin, or the local leader of the Men Must Die feminism coalition. It is not small-minded, as you like to say, to prefer that a rule be set in place which governs the external infleunces which might act upon one's performance of offical duties. It seems to me that such a rule, or set of rules, might be conducive to the equitable running of a state.

I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office. I want the state and its people protected from anyone who would use that office to further their own personal desires.


While I don't disagree with the ideal you present I do think that, like many ideals, it's unattainable. How exactly can you legislate against external influences upon an individual? It's impossible. While you appear to be a rather rational, skeptical, scientifically-minded person you are not without external influences, prejudices, and ingrained assumptions. The very languages we think, speak, and write with have these things built in.

You propose that public office should be performed without any concern other than the welfare of the state and it's people but how do you define welfare? By what moral measure would you use to determine whether an official is performing their office appropriately? Even when you can determine what public welfare is, which group of people are you defining it for? Should each state representative look only to the welfare of their constituents, or should they act in the National interest, globally? What if the welfare of two groups is in conflict? Once again you are looking for an ideal, with which I agree, but by what standard do you define it's measure?

Another problem here is that everyone has their own personal desires. The officer who wants to provide funds to house the homeless is acting out of personal desires and beliefs. Closer to what you probably mean would be "protection from officers using the office for their own personal interest at the cost of the public interest." Still, I don't believe you can always separate the two. Harder yet would be proving such an accusation.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Nope. Admit it, whether or not you believe, he doesn't. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. :(
It's really difficult to have a debate with a transcendentalist.

Its true though, isn’t it?

I wish I was a transcendentalist.

Common sense would indicate that the Sun revolves around the Earth yet this is not so. You need a bit more explanation than that.

Common sense is not a fixed mental position, whoever thought the sun revolved around the Earth probably had a good reason to think so according to his understanding at that time, even though he was wrong, where common sense comes into play, for him/them is understanding that they were wrong, once the truth had been shown.

I see life coming from life in all aspects of life, to me it is common sense to conclude that life started with someone, and not from an explosion, nothing or that Chithulu chap.
I think you will find that even great men of science like Einstein, Newton and others have come to a similar conclusion after all there laborious efforts to find the origin of life and the universe.

Do you not know the answers yourself or are you just lazy?

Maybe I could offer explanations, but it would be best for you to read the book in your own time and space, clearing your mind of any pre-conceived ideas you may have about God or religion, if you are serious.
That and obviously my explanations are not satisfactory to you.

I have read the BG and find it entirely unimpressive in it's explanation of the world.

That is not the purpose of BG.
Its purpose is, understanding your real position in the material world, understanding your identity as a soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul God, how one can reawaken his relationship with God and how one can go back home, back to Godhead upon leaving his material body.

I find nothing in it to recommend it over any other ancient text as far as truth is concerned.

It is the essence of all religious and ancient texts, it is not a competition to see which text is best. Jesus was vaishnav, Muhammad was vaishnav. Why? Because they only lived to serve God, nothing else.
All bona-fide religions are descended from veda. If you can grasp even small amount of the Gita, you will have some idea why God is so worshipable, but only if you desire.

A bunch of poorly reasoned transcendental philosophy and circular logic.

I don’t see it like that, I think it is the greatest book I have ever had the priviledge to read.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Jan,

The Bhagavad Gita is superior in that it is non-sectarian and that it was spoken by God Himself.

Oh, really. Hot damn everyone, Jan Ardena has solved the religon issue. Everybody else in the world is wrong, and the Bhagavad Gita is answer to all of our prayers.

:p Yeah, sure it was made by God. The same way Dumbo the elephant was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

So tell me Jan: How is it that the BG was written by God? How do you acually know this? Moses claimed that God was the one who gave him the Ten Commandments. Mohammed(sp?) calimed the Quran was told to him by the angel Gabriel. Abraham claimed that God acually spoke to him, and Jacob acually had a fist fight with God!

And now here you are, claiming the exact something.

Do you mind proving to me that it was, indeed, written by God?

Don’t take my view, develop your own view.

Done and done. God doesn't exist, I'm superfly snooka, and I have have more money than God. Hows that for theology? :o


Don’t worry about what christians say....

Usually I don't, except when they try to intrude on my freedom.

This is the material world, this means it is relative.

Your comparison is, sadly, accurate- They are many governments that treat their citizens this way.

But I would argue that a human establishment is for more flexible the supposed-will of a diety. Humans can form programs, charities, benefit plans for the more unfortunate.

The God of the Bible doesn't want us to learn anything, wants us to live in despair and meekness ( Because then we would be living in " worldly pleasures. " ) and if you don't do the minor task of prclaiming God your deity, your chucked into a firey pit for infinity.

I'd much rather deal the governments, than some vicious God-head like that.

Yes!

Well, alright, since you asked. :) I'll post later tonight when I get home from work, or sometime on the weekend ( If my beloved and I wish to do sometihng tonight. )

OK! Somewhere in the bible it says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as it he were a woman, or in other words homosexuality is offensive to God. Now we see where homosexuals are being ordained as preists, now put aside any thoughts of personal prejudice, if there are any, what does that tell you about the ‘church,’ and its relationship with God?

I only think your proving my point here- If those who proclaim the "truth of God" can't even follow their own doctrines, why I think anything of what they have to say about God, then?

It is not a matter of ‘I’m right,’ it is a matter of simple deduction that even a child can do.

And what have you deduced? That everyone else is wrong, and the BG is the ordained Word of God?

If thats the case, you still need to prove it.

What evidence do you require?

Well, for one, God comming right here, right now, in my house before me, to tell me that Jan Ardena is correct, that the BG is the word of God. If God can't do that, then he's either ignoring me ( which, if in the case of the BG, renoucing God involves some ype of punishment, would be criminal negligance ) or he isn't there, OR he isn't that powerful. And if God isn't powerful enough, then God is not God.

Seeing as you are familiar with the bible how is ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ intolerance. It is because of a lack of these qualities why intolerance occurs, just think about it.

I agree. It is because of the lack of tolerance, of compassion, of empathy, that hatred, bigotry, and intolerance happen.

However, I would argue that we do not need a God to dictate these nessicties to human beings. We're quite capable of mustering these feelings on our own. I most certainly do not need a God to tell me to be nice to another person: I've always known that, even before I was ever aware of God.

It is not religion that causes these atrocities, it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust, greed and envy amongst human beings, that causes these things, as I stated earlier. This part of sci-forum is labelled ‘religion,’ but where is the religion on this board, it is not the cause of this board, it is lack of religion that is the cause

Your use of the word religion seems to imply that your making it synonomous with "empathy" or "compassion". This is not only incorrect, and un-nessecary use of words. I do not need to use the word " religion " to describe the above emotion. The words assigned to them fit just fine.

If I have construed it incorrectly, then please do correct me. :)

Until next time

Nelson:
No, I studied Religion.
Haven't I explained that? Haven't you understand? Then what's the problem?

I am merely stunned that you came to such a conclusion.

Do you know how many people already interpreted the Bible in the same way you do? That's why we had Holy Wars, because they didn't interpreted those passages.

As an athiest, I am in no danger of starting any Holy Wars. :D

I agree. But many atheists are also selfish...

As are many Christians. Humans are inherently selfish.

Adam:
or the local leader of the Men Must Die feminism coalition.

Well, I can't see why you would have a problem with that. ;)

(There might be one Brit who understands that pun)

Jan:
it is lack of religion or irreligion which creates lust,greed and envy amongst human beings

Well, one out of three ain't bad - it is a well known and established fact that athiests are better in bed.

I offer my immediate recognition of Adam's accidental double-entendre as evidence.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Common sense is not a fixed mental position, whoever thought the sun revolved around the Earth probably had a good reason to think so according to his understanding at that time, even though he was wrong, where common sense comes into play, for him/them is understanding that they were wrong, once the truth had been shown.

Your argument of 'common sense' was in answer to my question: How do come up with such a steadfast faith in your own knowledge of something that is not demonstrable? We agree that common sense is fallible. So I ask my question once again.

I see life coming from life in all aspects of life, to me it is common sense to conclude that life started with someone, and not from an explosion, nothing or that Chithulu chap.

What then, if your understanding was changed? What if you really took a look at evolution, physics, biology and saw that there was a more accurate description of what occurs? Better yet, one that is verifiable and supported with actual evidence. This is precisely what I and some other's here are proposing; that you "see the sun move across the sky" and make a 'common sense' evaluation which is incorrect.

I think you will find that even great men of science like Einstein, Newton and others have come to a similar conclusion after all there laborious efforts to find the origin of life and the universe.

Einstein and Newton were physicists, not biologists, their opinion on the origin of life is of no more authority than FDR's or Michael Jackson's. However, even in the areas where their authority does apply, there are new facts, new theories, and evidence that disproves some of their opinions.

Maybe I could offer explanations, but it would be best for you to read the book in your own time and space, clearing your mind of any pre-conceived ideas you may have about God or religion, if you are serious.

I have… and I found it lacking. I have seriously explored several religions, looking for truth. I found little truth in them. Definitely not enough truth to swallow all the unproven, unfounded baggage that goes with them. I would like to know why you believe and whether you can back those reasons up.

That and obviously my explanations are not satisfactory to you.

Hard to tell when you don't really give any. Why don't you try me.

That is not the purpose of BG. Its purpose is, understanding your real position in the material world, understanding your identity as a soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul God, how one can reawaken his relationship with God and how one can go back home, back to Godhead upon leaving his material body.

Why should I believe it is true? How can I determine it's authority? How can you demonstrate that it's precepts are more valid than any other religion or that of science? If you can, please do so. If not, stop insisting that it's the truth because your argument is unfounded.

All bona-fide religions are descended from veda.

How so, when there are religions older than 1500BC?

"Veda ... oldest scriptures of Hinduism and the most ancient religious texts in an Indo-European language. ... The Veda is the literature of the Aryans who invaded NW India c.1500 BC and pertains to the fire sacrifice that constituted their religion. The Vedic hymns were probably first compiled after a period of about 500 years during which the invaders assimilated various native religious ideas. The end of the Vedic period is about 500 BC."

I don’t see it like that, I think it is the greatest book I have ever had the priviledge to read.

And that is fine. It's an extremely interesting read, I'll give you that. But if you are going to assert that it is 'truth' you'll need more than your own faith to prove it. I can just as easily find a faithful Christian that says what they believe is the truth and that your belief is false. Why should I beleve you over them?

~Raithere

Using the example you cited, Ashcroft and all. Should his activities be curtailed because of his beliefs? Or, using what ahs been said before, does he: A) deserve punishment; or B) deserve nothing good from anyone?Try being more specific. The example I cited? From where? From you? You have claimed that religious people should be forbidden fromholding office.

As far as what someone deserves (e.g. nothing good from anyone) the example I provided is Randall Adams, convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a police officer.

Right now, the paragraph of yours that I've cited above seems to be combining two points in order to evade answering either one of them.I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office.So you're withdrawing your bigoted statement or withdrawing it? Here, you can examine it again while you make your choice:

•*From what little I know of the guy, he should be removed from office. Not for his persinal views, not for anything particular about him, but because it's simply a very bad idea to put such religious people in state office.I don't want to prohobit christians and other folk from running for public office. I want the state and its people protected from anyone who would use that office to further their own personal desires.So it seems a revision of your words. Is this the standard you would prefer to defend? Now then, why don't you draft the legislation, and explain just how you're going to do that? In the United States, at least, it's impossible without rewriting the Constitution.

Have fun.Again, I would suggest you don't know my thoughts or motives and are assuming muchIt's a nice counterpoint, and even follows the pattern of American politicians: make a broad statement, get called out, withdraw, revise, present irrelevant example in your defense. Good show, Adam, but it was a stale tactic before I was born.The thoughts of others are considered. owever, my own thoughts are more improtant because they are mine. I would expect your own thoughts to be as important to you, Ashcroft's to be as important to him, et cetera. I can not possibly have a lack of sympathy for the human condition since I am human, and the human condition is my condition.That's quite funny. Especially since you treat your thoughts as if they're more important in the general scheme of life than other people's. Of course they're important to you. But in your attempts to exclude others from the civic process, you have elevated your own standards above all other people's.I prefer action over philosophy in books? Read Scaramouche. A nice mix of the two. 100% about "the human condition". Reminds me, I have a book called The Human Condition somewhere.Yes, and I have one called The Inhuman Condition which is right impressive.

Well, you do of courser prefer pure fiction, and have objections to the supposedly deep:I prefer to read pure fiction. I find that supposedly deep and insightful commentaries on society are generally written by sell-out pretend crusaders trying to make some money off True Believers and modern-day wannabe Bohemian art-student rejects. They grab a few facts and wrap a big bunch of opinions around them, it's nothing more than what you can find in any newspaper, and I don't like newspapers. I find my own thoughts about the world far more interesting than theirs anyway. (Wanting to die .... (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=6442))Imean, you wrote that questionmark in there about preferring action over philosophy in books. It was only something I got from you, so why are you surprised?Superstition does not become the natural state. The natural state is not superstition, but to have superstitions and then to sort the wheat from the chaff.So the logical process of sorting out the wheat from the chaff is inborn, and not learned?\That process of learning, changing, and sorting the wheat from the chaff is what should be fixed in place as the natural state, if for some reason it is considered not already.As you see, that process is as variable as it can be. Some people cling to it and start canceling out any portion of the mysterium they don't understand. Some people push it away and hold their fears of Devils and inadequacy their entire lives. Some people get along with it very well.I am neither deliberately representing nor misrepresenting myself.So that's not Adam who believes people should be prohibited from holding office because of their religion, or whatever that standard has become in your poor excuses afterwards. Oh, look, we get another one of 'em, too.What you know, if you actually read my posts, is that I hold a single standard for all humans, even atheists. An atheist, too, should be scrutinised while serving a public office. It is from your posts that I derive these things about you. It's quite easy, since many of those ideas come up in your other points. Yet you retreat from even your own words because ... why? Because you're not thinking their implications through? There is a great difference from scruitinizing a servant of the public while in office and preventing that person from holding office on arbitrary standards.No, you learned one thing. And does this mean you object to the needs of the individual?Specifically, it means that I object to making the needs of the individual so important as to harm the self or others.So of all the "natural" circumstances humans opt out of, bloodthirsty competition among the herd shouldn't be one of them?That's the way the world works. There's always a bigger fish. (Sound familiar?)"But yes, I apply critical analysis to myself as much as to the outside world."Well, if I need clarification on this point it's only because the rest of your posts don't seem to reflect such things. Your scrambling revision toward scrutiny of public officials ... well? Write a standard that can be put in place that achieves any dimension of what you've written from the bigoted standard all down through the washed-out excuses. I think you'll find that what you're proposing is problematic at best, and very near impossible at the worst.What are my dictionaries? Apart from the usual web resources, I generally use: Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Pears, MacMillan.Well, that's good. (Then you're familiar with the definitions I'm providing, such as those that are documented from Webster's.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I have to point it out, I got interested in your Gita since you always quote from this ancient book, so I did a little research on my own of this book, this is what I found:

The Historical Context of The Bhagavad Gita
and Its Relation to Indian Religious Doctrines


Soumen De


The Bhagavad Gita is perhaps the most famous, and definitely the most widely-read, ethical text of ancient India. As an episode in India's great epic, the Mahabharata, The Bhagavad Gita now ranks as one of the three principal texts that define and capture the essence of Hinduism; the other two being the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. Though this work contains much theology, its kernel is ethical and its teaching is set in the context of an ethical problem. The teaching of The Bhagavad Gita is summed up in the maxim "your business is with the deed and not with the result." When Arjuna, the third son of king Pandu (dynasty name: Pandavas) is about to begin a war that became inevitable once his one hundred cousins belonging to the Kaurava dynasty refused to return even a few villages to the five Pandava brothers after their return from enforced exile, he looks at his cousins, uncles and friends standing on the other side of the battlefield and wonders whether he is morally prepared and justified in killing his blood relations even though it was he, along with his brother Bhima, who had courageously prepared for this war. Arjuna is certain that he would be victorious in this war since he has Lord Krishna (one of the ten incarnations of Vishnu) on his side. He is able to visualize the scene at the end of the battle; the dead bodies of his cousins lying on the battlefield, motionless and incapable of vengeance. It is then that he looses his nerve to fight.


The necessity for the arose because the one hundred cousins of the Panadavas refused to return the kingdom to the Pandavas as they had originally promised. The eldest of the Pandav brothers, Yudhisthir, had lost his entire kingdom fourteen years ago to the crafty Kaurava brothers in a game of dice, and was ordered by his cousins to go on a fourteen-year exile. The conflict between the Pandavas and the Kauravas brewed gradually when the Kauravas refused to return the kingdom to the Panadavas and honor the agreement after the fourteen-year exile, and escalated to a full scale war when the Kauravas refused to even grant Yudhisthir's reduced demand for a few villages instead of the entire kingdom. As the battle is about to begin, Arjuna, himself an acclaimed warrior, wonders how he could kill his own blood relatives with whom he had grown up as a child. He puts the battle on hold and begins a conversation with Krishna, one of the ten but most important incarnations of the Universal Hindu God, Vishnu. The Bhagavad Gita begins here and ends with Krishna convincing Arjuna that in the grand scheme of things, he is only a pawn. The best he could do is do his duty and not question God's will. It was his duty to fight. In convincing Arjuna, the Lord Krishna provides a philosophy of life and restores Arjuna's nerve to begin the battle -- a battle that had been stalled because the protagonist had lost his nerve and needed time to reexamine his moral values.


Even though The Bhagavad Gita (hereafter referred to as the Gita) is one of the three principal texts that define the essence of Hinduism, and since all over the world Hindus chant from the Gita during most of their religious ceremonies, strictly speaking the Gita is not one of the Hindu scriptures. In light of its inseparable links to one of the two great Hindu epics (Mahabharata and Ramayana) which most Indians hold very dear to their hearts, and because Krishna, the most venerated and popular of the incarnations of Lord Vishnu, figures so prominently in it, the Gita over the years has not only become very popular but has ascended to spiritual heights that are afforded only to the Vedas (and the subsequent reinterpretive philosophies that followed them) and the Upanishads in the ancient Indian literature. The concept and symbol of God were extremely complicated issues (see below) in the ancient Hindu religious literature prior to the writing of the Gita. The notion of God and the paths to salvation are integral parts of all religions. The manner in which Hinduism originally dealt with these two fundamental issues was very complex and appeared to be too speculative at times. This was one of the reasons for which Buddhism branched out as a separate religion. When Buddhism was beginning to grow in popularity, Hinduism met with its first challenge: To provide a clear-cut, easy-to-worship symbol of God to its followers. For a variety of reasons, Lord Krishna was the obvious choice. Many have even suggested that it was one of the most pivotal choices ever made by ancient scholars to `humanize' the concept of God in the Hindu religion. Molded in the original image of Lord Vishnu, Krishna is an affable Avatar (reincarnation of God) which for the first time provided concrete guidelines for living to all mortals. The average Hindu might not know much about Brahma, but every one knows who Lord Krishna is. Mahatma Gandhi read the Gita often when he was in seclusion and in prison.


But, the universal popularity of the Gita has not detracted Indian scholars from deviating from the fundamental truth about Hinduism. The Gita is not the Hindu scripture even though the literal translation of "Bhagavad Gita" is "The Song of God". The Nobel laureate Indian poet, Rabindra Nath Tagore, rarely quoted from the Gita in his philosophical writings; instead, he chose to refer to the Upanishads, to quote from it, and to use its teachings in his own works. Of course, the teachings of the Upanishads are included in the Gita; they are visible in multiple chapters of the Gita. The kinetic concepts of karma and yoga, which appeared for the first time in the Upanishads (explained below), appear repeatedly in the Gita, often in disguised forms.


As with almost every religious Indian text, it is difficult to pinpoint when exactly the Gita was written. Without a doubt, it was written over a period of centuries by many writers. From the contents of the Gita, it is abundantly clear that both the principal teachings of the Upanishads and of early Buddhism were familiar to the writers of the Gita. So, it has been approximated that the Gita was written during the period 500-200 BCE. Even though India is one of the few nations which has a continuous documented history, very few Indian religious texts exists for which the exact date of publication is established without controversy.


Despite its universal appeal, the Gita is replete with contradictions both at the fundamental level and at the highest level of philosophical discourse. To the discerning eye, it would seem that what has been said in the previous chapter, is contradicted in the very next chapter. This is the fundamental complaint against the Gita, and this fact would appear to be ironic given the fact that the Gita was originally written to reconcile the differences between two of the six major ancient Indian philosophies (Darshans) that evolved over the early years of Hinduism and became integral parts of ancient Indian religious literature. The irony disappears however when one understands what the Gita purported to achieve at the level of philosophical and religious discourse. This fact is crucial not only for the understanding of the principal themes of the Gita but also to locate the essence of the Gita in the overall picture of ancient Indian doctrines. The Gita attempted, for the first time, to reconcile the teachings of two very abstract Indian religious doctrines into one whole. The task was a formidable one.


The Gita tried to include the fundamentals of two ancient Indian philosophies into one document and reconcile the principal differences between them. At the outset, one must note that the two doctrines (Darshans) were often extremely difficult to understand. Hence the inevitable contradictions or duality of interpretation. The Six Darshans of ancient India were actually of differing origin and purpose, but all were brought into the scheme by being recognized as viable ways of salvation. They were divided into three groups of two complementary schools of thought (Darshans) or doctrines: Nyaya and Vaisesika; Sankhyya and Yoga; and Mimamsha and Vedanta. The Bhagavad Gita attempted to reconcile the Sankhyya philosophy with those of the Vedanta doctrine. One must note in passing that the Sankhyya school of thought led to Buddhism while the Vedanta philosophy is at the root of modern Hinduism. In this article, we are only going to discuss briefly the two Darshans -- the Sankhyya and the Vedanta -- the Gita attempted to reconcile.


The Sankhyya is the oldest of the six Darshans while the Vedanta is the most important of the six systems. The various subsystems of the Vedanta doctrine has led to the emergence of modern intellectual Hinduism. The primary text of the Vedanta system is the Brahma Sutras, and its doctrines were derived in great part from the Upanishads, which marked the beginning of Hinduism as is understood and practiced today. Even though the Vedas are India's ancient sacred texts, modern Hinduism begins with the Vedanta (end of Vedas) and attains its zenith with the Brahma Sutras.


The Sankhyya philosophy traces the origins of everything to the interplay of Prakriti (nature) and Purusha (the Self, to be differentiated from the concept of the soul in the latter Indian philosophies). These two separate entities have always existed and their interplay is at the root of all reality. The concept of God is conspicuous by its absence. There is no direct mention of God but only a passing reference as to how one should liberate himself to attain the realization of Is war (a heavenly entity). A very significant feature of Sankhyya is the doctrine of the three constituent qualities (gunas), causing virtue (sattva), passion (rajas), and dullness (tamas). On the other hand, the Vedanta school of thought deals with the concept of Brahman the ultimate reality that is beyond all logic and encompasses not only the concepts of being and non-being but also all the phases in between. It is one of the most difficult concepts in the entire Indian philosophy. At the highest level of truth, the entire universe of phenomena, including the gods themselves, was unreal -- the world was Maya, illusion, a dream, a mirage, a fragment of the imagination. The only reality is Brahman.


One can see quite clearly the sources for the Gita's contradictions. It was dealing with not only two widely-differing Darshans but also with two of the most abstract philosophical systems. We know that the Gita was written long after the emergence of modern Hinduism. So it was able to draw on a wide variety of philosophical themes -- both ancient and relatively modern by comparison, and often opposing -- still present in modern Hinduism. Yet, to consolidate the two schools of thoughts proved to be an extremely difficult task -- a fact which the lyricism of the Gita, in the words of Lord Krishna himself, could not camaflouge. Any serious reader would arrive at the conclusion that even though the Gita mentions the Sankhyya, it more or less elaborates on ideas that originated with the Upanishads.


The fundamental tenets of Hinduism took shape during the period 800-500 BCE. They were set down in a series of treaties called the Upanishads. The Upanishads arise at the end of the Vedas, which earns it the name Veda-anta, which literally means "end (anta) of the Vedas." Almost all philosophy and religion in India rests upon the wealth of speculation contained in these works. The Upanishads center on the inner realms of the spirit. Encompassing the meaning of spiritual unity, the Upanishads point directly to the Divine Unity which pervades all of nature and is identical to the self.


There are four "kinetic ideas" -- ideas that involve action or motion -- that represent the core of Indian spirituality. The ultimate objective is control of the passions and to realize a state of void -- a concept very similar to that of Buddhism. The four kinetic ideas are "karma, maya, nirvana, and yoga" and they appear in the Gita. But one must remember that they appeared for the first time in the Upanishads. A brief summary of the four ideas are provided below.

Karma: The law of universal causality, which connects man with the cosmos and condemns him to transmigrate -- to move from one body to another after death -- indefinitely. In the Gita, Krishna makes an allusion to the eternal soul that moves from body to body as it ascends or descends the ladder of a given hierarchy, conditioned on the nature of one's own karma -- work of life or life deeds.
Maya: refers to cosmic illusion; the mysterious process that gives rise to phenomena and maintains the cosmos. According to this idea, the world is not simply what is seems to the human senses -- a view with which the 20th century western scientists wholly agree. Absolute reality, situated somewhere beyond the cosmic illusion woven by maya and beyond human experience as conditioned by karma. Both Tagore, the renowned Indian poet and Albert Einstein, the famous scientist, agreed on this conclusion. Absolute reality, in their minds, was beyond human perception.

Nirvana: The state of absolute blessedness, characterized by release from the cycle of reincarnations; freedom from the pain and care of the external world; bliss. Union with God or Atman. Hindus call such mystical union with ultimate reality as Samandhi or Moksha.

Yoga: implies integration; bringing all the faculties of the psyche under the control of the self. Essentially, the object of various types of yoga is mind control, and the system lays down the effectual techniques of gaining liberation and achieving divine union. The word yoga is loosely applied to any program or technique which leads toward the union with God or Atman. There are five principal kinds of yoga: Hatha(physical), jnana (the way of knowledge), bhakti (the way of love), karma (the way of work), and rajah (mystical experience).

The Western world's interest in The Bhagavad Gita began around the end of the eighteenth century when the first English translation of the Gita was published. All religious texts of ancient India were written in Sanskrit. In November 1784, the first direct translation of a Sanskrit work into English was completed by Charles Wilkins. The book that was translated was The Bhagavad Gita. Friedreich Max Mueller (1823-1900), the German Sanskritist who spent most of his working life as Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford University, served as the chief editor of the Sacred Books of the East. (Oxford University Press). The Gita was included in this famous collection. Since then, the Gita has become one of the most widely-read texts of the world. True, there are unexplained contradictions and paradoxes in this brief book, but its wide-ranging implications based on the two ancient Darshans of India and its allegorical meanings are still being examined and reinterpreted.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So in a sence you Gita is just another history of ancient people, however this was also used as a quide much like the bible, with the jewish story. Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions which have been corrected, therefore which means it has been re-written pretty much the same as the bible. So you can't say that the Gita is the word of god, cause this would make your god as fallacious as the christian god. The Gita is the work of man, just as the bible was.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions....

Such as...???

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Well, one out of three ain't bad - it is a well known and established fact that athiests are better in bed.

Are you saying that 99.999% of the worlds population are better in bed?
What at….sleeping?

I offer my immediate recognition of Adam's accidental double-entendre as evidence.

And I offer you my sympathy.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Raithere,


Do you love somebody?

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
I'd much rather deal the governments, than some vicious God-head like that.

See how God is merciful, He has given you what you want. :p

I only think your proving my point here- If those who proclaim the "truth of God" can't even follow their own doctrines, why I think anything of what they have to say about God, then?

If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, don't sweat about it.

If thats the case, you still need to prove it.

I think it was you who said you have a christian girlfriend who you love, if so, prove to me you love her.

If God can't do that, then he's either ignoring me ( which, if in the case of the BG, renoucing God involves some ype of punishment, would be criminal negligance ) or he isn't there, OR he isn't that powerful. And if God isn't powerful enough, then God is not God.

Try and summon the president of USA to your house and see if he comes, and he’s only a man.
If you want to see God, there are rules and regulations you have to adhere to in order to purify yourself, these rules and regs are documented in the vedas.
If you want to live a life of pure self indulgence, then you can, but you have to pay the price at the end of your life, that is what you call punishment. If you look at your life now, based on the philosophy of karma, you created this situation from your last life.

However, I would argue that we do not need a God to dictate these nessicties to human beings.

You don't even know how you came to be, or how this universe came to be, how do you know whether you need a God or not.

We're quite capable of mustering these feelings on our own.

Then why is there so much suffering in this world, suffering which is all mainly due to man??

I most certainly do not need a God to tell me to be nice to another person: I've always known that, even before I was ever aware of God.

Here's one of your favourite questions; Prove it?

Your use of the word religion seems to imply that your making it synonomous with "empathy" or "compassion".

Religion is a means by which one learns to love God.
The majority of users on this board are anti religion, so where is the religion on this board titled ‘religion.’

This is not only incorrect, and un-nessecary use of words. I do not need to use the word " religion " to describe the above emotion. The words assigned to them fit just fine.

Neither do I.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Raithere,
Do you love somebody?


More than one even.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
More than one even.

Can you prove it?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
Believe whatever you want to believe Jan, but your infamous Gita is also full of contradictions....

Such as...???

Love

Jan Ardena.

Well since you ask, apparently you have accepted the LIE of the Gita and it's philosophical teachings. Here have a look:

HINDUISM AND THE BHAGAVAD-GITA
I think it is a dangerous thing to say that destruction as well as creation are needed in this world. It could too facilely be used to justify every variety of outright evil.

Karma is defined in this book as "a moral law of cause and effect." I like this a lot. It means that justice is not dependent on the whim of a personal god, but is as intrinsic as...hydrogen. Of course the human wolverines could take the line that you've earned any and all misery that comes to you -- but maybe acts of compassion toward the miserable are part of their karma, too!

Moksha is the Hindu escape from the perpetual round of birth and death, sin and recompense, the ensnaring bonds of the past. This description bears a faint resemblance to the Christian idea of salvation. The way to moksha is to detach yourself from desire; the goal, to escape to the "full awareness of divine, ultimate reality," where "change and time are no more."

I'd go nuts. This description of moksha occurs on p. 18 of the book, and so early in my search I have rediscovered that I DON'T WANT TO GO TO HEAVEN AT ALL!

I can see that "The meek shall inherit the earth" is another doctrine I'm likely to carry over from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Dharma (which means both teaching and duty) is how you can achieve moksha. There are several ways to follow dharma: you can meditate; you can study, like a theologian; you can spend your life in "desireless" (selfless?) work, like a nun or a Peace Corps volunteer; or you can love God, like a Pentecostal. There is nothing abstract or calm or platonic about this love. It is "ardent, even erotic." Which explains why Harry and I have had so much fun since I began hanging out at Starr King.

It occurs to me that Starr King is probably very much a bhakti (devotional) church, despite its humanist culture, if the Sunday services are anything to go by.

You will find more blatant contradictions in the Bhagavad-Gita than we are accustomed to perceiving in the Bible (though they certainly exist there, too). The Hindu reaction to such a charge is: "So?"

The theme, or rather the "excuse" for the Bhagavad-Gita, is the Mahabharata, an epic battle of prehistoric times. So it begins by dealing with this bloody battle in prospect. War throws good and evil, freedom and oppression, and the search for God into sharp relief.

Arjuna faces the question: should he go to war? Krishna (the Krishna, but nobody knows that yet) explains that the soul is immortal and Krishna loves you, therefore you can stand anything. The soul needs purifying, precisely because it is immortal, and that's arduous work, in which Krishna will sustain the Hindu believer.

Arjuna is not comforted, apparently. Beyond mere physical fear for himself, he is appalled to the point of prostration by the horrors that will be visited on others. If this is a normal, healthy reaction, then every war is indeed an orgy of destruction, and no banalities about valor will change that. Why do people go to war? Krishna says, eventually, that he ought to do his duty as a warrior, but this goes against the Hindu grain. Hindus know as well as James that warfare springs from desire.

On reading about this puzzlement of Arjuna's, I got a glimmer of possible insight into why Hinduism teaches reincarnation.

If you truly understand how much misery and blood guilt war can bring, it boggles the mind to think of the karmic debt incurred by the participants. It might seem impossible that seventy years would be enough time to pay it off. Or that seventy years of recompense might be enough for the victims. Or, for instance, it might be beyond belief that Hitler and his cronies could have grown so murderous in the span of a single human lifetime.

Hinduism is as ambivalent about war as any modern pacifist who says to himself, "--but I would have fought Hitler." "The Gita, like the New Testament, suggests that true divinity is spiritual in the sense of too reasonable, good and creative to get dead-ended into approving people's mutual maiming."

And yet Krishna advises Arjuna to fight -- his relatives, no less -- on the grounds that that is his duty. Not slaughter per se, but defense of his country. For Arjuna, a soldier, to be a pacifist (like a priest) would panic everybody. (Say, I ought to read Karl Shapiro's "The Conscientious Objector" again.) "We are not yet at the stage [of human history] where the individual conscience has evolved sufficiently to stand up to social pressures." So Krishna pressures him to kill, coaxing him with earthly or heavenly rewards, threatening him with the wrath of the gods and the loss of his good name.

Well, in the ordinary case, this won't do.

But what if Arjuna had been an Allied soldier? Maybe there is such a thing as a holy war that can be fought with carnal weapons, the authors say, but the chances of being involved in one are not high.

The authors say Krishna's arguments have been disproved by two millennia of human history.

How does detachment, desirelessness, apply to a god like Krishna? Supposedly it merely means that he is not easy to disappoint, is slow to anger, as the God of the Bible is said to be. Now, in learning from all the world's religious traditions, we have to "leave the chaff and take the wheat," as Emerson put it. A long description of Krishna's splendor and divinity follows his short-sighted urging of Arjuna to war. Is that sufficient "wheat"?

Say, this reminds me of the vision of "Behemoth" in Sheri Tepper's book, Shadow's End.

To quote Krishna, "Demonic men do not understand either acting or turning away. In them there is no purity, or even good conduct or truth. They say the world is without reality, without foundation, without a lord, not made by one thing following another but only moved by desire."

I find this a very bewildering statement. For one thing, branding any category of people as "demonic men" seems to provide fertile ground for the religious intolerance Hinduism is famed for not having. Further, I know very few people like this. To say that the world is "without a lord" is not necessarily to say that it is without reality or foundation or moved only by selfish desire. Krishna doesn't recognize the possibility of ethical atheism or agnosticism, at least not here.

But the Carmodys make great capital out of this passage [16:7-8]. They say that "the demonic make the will to power, the desire to possess, the key to understanding politics. In Western terms, the demonic see the world much as Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund Freud did: libido, desire, is all." Well, this makes better sense, but I'm not sure how they wring it out of this verse. It sounds awfully Fundamentalist to me. They say that the demonic are connected neither to divine principles -- not to any moral principles higher than themselves -- nor connected to the realities of everyday human life, like hunger and thirst and getting old, which would humble them.

Sounds like Ollie North, who could not see anything one hair's-breadth higher than "patriotism", and who probably hasn't missed a meal in twenty years.

The Hindus apparently have as much trouble believing in the love of God as I do. But in both Hindu and Christian tradition, perception of the love of the eternal God for man is supposed to be the root of self-confidence and people's love for each other.

I've never been able to get that to work. A Catholic priest, I forget who, once wrote "The love of God will drive a man to drink." The thought of a personal god who wants into my life horrifies me -- has for at least the past year. What have I got that he wants? "You are loved by me surely," says Krishna. What on earth attracts him?

Contemplation, or meditation, is another route to moksha, and it sounds terrifying the way the Carmodys describe it. It sounds like when you make proper contact with God, you cease to exist. That's the same as death, as far as I can see.

But the authors draw a distinction between meditation (which you do with you brain) and contemplation (which you do with your heart). No wonder the Watchtower Society warns people away from it.

But when Westerners contemplate god they come back talking about being "taken outside themselves and shown the unity of all things," and it is evidently identical to the Indian mystic who thinks he is dissolving into the cosmos. The Carmodys instead compare it to a child utterly at ease in its mother's arms, asking, "What resource is better able to secure people in the mature sense of self-worth necessary for peace-making?"

Well, it is still appalling even when described this way. How can a human being survive the direct experience of the love of God? Such warmth is heat of volcanic intensity. I can't see why it wouldn't burn you to death.

Or maybe it would just transform you permanently. Maybe that's all that mystics mean when they talk about the annihilation of the soul. Tear down and rebuild. Maybe I could do that.

Are you saying that 99.999% of the worlds population are better in bed?

Er, ah, no. Athiests compose about 1-5% of the world's population.

You are back to your Orwellian twisting of words again, honey.

What at….sleeping?

Dunno, never fallen asleep on a partner, never had him or her fall asleep on me. I bow to your superior experiance in the matter.

Jan,

See how God is merciful, He has given you what you want.

Puh-leez. "Merciful" doesn't belong the same sentence when referring to any God that damnes people to eternal hell.

If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, don't sweat about it.

Believe you me, I don't. It religionists who come to my door trying to explain me that they have something I need, that I disdain. So as soon as they finish doing that, I'll finally be able to stop thinking about it.

Try and summon the president of USA to your house and see if he comes, and he’s only a man. If you want to see God, there are rules and regulations you have to adhere to in order to purify yourself, these rules and regs are documented in the vedas. If you want to live a life of pure self indulgence, then you can, but you have to pay the price at the end of your life, that is what you call punishment. If you look at your life now, based on the philosophy of karma, you created this situation from your last life.

Firstly: God is not a man. God can talk to everybody on this planet, at this very moment, and can hold conversation with them easily.

Secondly: Again, Why are you right? Why should the vedas hold more authority than the Wiccan rede, or the Bible? All of these have something to say reguarding God.

You don't even know how you came to be, or how this universe came to be, how do you know whether you need a God or not.

Acually, I do know how I came to be. My Mother and father played hide-the-bolonni, and I was the result. I don't know where the universe is, but I do know that I don't need to appeal to the authority of an imaginary being inorder to try and make some sense out of it. I'm pretty confident that, one day, humanity may just discover where the universe came from.

And if they do discover a God, it will be interesting to see which god they'll find.

Then why is there so much suffering in this world, suffering which is all mainly due to man??

Because human begins can make mistakes. We don't proclaim to be perfect, unlike the god(s) in the vedas, the bible, or the tul'mud. And if we become extinct, it will either to due to something beyond our control ( like a meteor ) or because of ourselves.

In any case, if God did exist, he has a lot to answer for.

Here's one of your favourite questions; Prove it?

Easily. My mother raised me to know what was right and wrong waaay before I grandmother took me to church for the first time.

NOW You prove to me the BG is right, and the others are not, or I am no longer going to reguard any further statements you make about the BG. I have asked you multiple times to prove the BG, and you have not. I expect, the next thread, that you atleast try.

Until next time Jan.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
You are back to your Orwellian twisting of words again, honey.

:D OK pookie, I’m not going to argue this issue with you anymore, there’s simply no point.

never had him or her fall asleep on me..

If that is a picture of you under your picture then i'm not surprised. :) :rolleyes:

DING-DONG BABEEEE!! :cool:

Lurrv.

Jan Ardena.

PS. If not then forget we had this conversation.

In an earlier post Cris pointed out:

And Counterbalance I don’t believe there is a fine line between the positions here. However, I’m open to suggestion.

I should say first that I’m not attempting to speak for Q. I thought I recognized a distinction he’d called to Cris’s attention in his “case study of Adam” post, and in his related posts. Rather than make an improper as well as an incorrect assumption I asked Q to verify my translation, which he did. If it happens that he still agrees with what I’ve written here, that’s fine. If not, he can comment further as or when he likes.

Perhaps also worth nothing, the “Adam” described in this post should not be confused with the individual who authored this thread. There may be some similarities in the two “Adams” and their respective outlooks, but drawing such comparisons is not the point of this post.

~~~

Cris:

I don’t think you are in error with your definitions and explanations of what an “atheist” is, or of what “atheism” means. You’ve covered it about as well as any serious and learned “atheist” could--on this thread and elsewhere. Even so, under that correctly defined label of “atheist” I think we could exclude one type of human who does all that a properly defined “atheist” would seem to do when rationally rejecting a claim that gods exists--due to a lack of evidence... but who does not precisely fit the label of “atheist” because that same rational method of judging (thinking) is applied across the board in Adam's case; applied to every sort of consideration Adam might make. A “skeptic” by common standards, yes, but again not quite the perfect fit. The case study “Adam” I’m thinking of is not necessarily a common human individual. (which is why it was appropriate that he be presented as a ‘case study,’ imo.)

To borrow briefly from Neil Peart of Rush:

No, his mind is not for rent. To any god or government...

We could back that up and just say that Adam's mind is not for rent. Period.

Depending on one’s view, Adam's type and use of rationality is above, beyond (or even below) what is commonly asserted or considered to be “rational” thought.

For Adam it’s not only a lack of belief in gods due to a lack of evidence. It‘s his whole mindset. “Belief” doesn’t enter the picture for Adam with respect to anything, any topic. The concept of “belief” or “disbelief” is not acceptable to Adam.

Adam doesn’t care if the rest of the world wishes to label him, or even wishes to argue over whether or not he‘s been labeled correctly. By his standards, it would be irrational of him to care what the rest of the world does in this (and many other) respect(s).

Adam has no use for labels much as he has no use for a concept of “belief.” Again, Adam is willing to think in terms of “acceptable as far as we know.” Full stop. And this means that whatever theory or proposition he encounters, or even comes up with himself, is only ever going to be a working model for the duration of his own interest in it. And this is because Adam understands that, as he is, he is limited in his ability to be certain about what is possible or not, what is absolutely true or false. Curiosity, a natural human tendency to explore, experience, and grow, along with very well-developed rational self-interest, are what fuel his willingness to work with some ideas in the manner he does. And even to work with some ideas at all.

Adam would not agree that it is natural or appropriate for him, a human, to care about much that other modern day men claim he should, or to care in a way or to a degree that others say he should. Adam really, really doesn’t care. In my opinion, Adam is a more evolved human being. A man before his time. Fortunately he (and the rest of mankind to a lesser extent) has evolved to such a point that he can live in the present world and among great numbers of people who are (for one reason or another) enslaved by deeply rooted habits of irrational thinking. Adam is not a superman as some philosophers have idealized, but rather a relatively rare human specimen that has realized more of his human potential than most others have to date. He is not necessarily the “epitome.” He is an “advancement.”

In a sense, Adam is bypassing all the futile intellectual hubbub and friction that is attached to a question of (or debate over) whether or not gods exist, or whether or not any god was involved with the creation of the world as we understand it so far.

In a post to you, Q quoted your definition and query:

(a) = no or absence of.
(theism) = belief in a god.

= no belief in a god, or absence of belief in a god.

Are we in agreement?

Inasmuch as it matters to most people, yes. We can agree that Adam has “no belief in a god, or [has an] absence of belief in a god.” But what we actually have is an individual who is more than an “atheist.” (Or less, depending on how one chooses to interpret this.) Adam falls on the other side of a fine line because of the nature--the breadth and the depth--of his rationality and his ability to use it. It could even be that Adam has actually evolved in a purely physical sense--biologically, chemically--which affects the type and strength of emotions he deals with, and how, and which enables Adam to behave in a more suitable pro-survival way for humans.

By and large it will often appear that Adam is “zigging” along with the rest of us; that he’s not particularly unusual. In many respects he’s not that different. Yet in the most fundamental construct of “who is Adam?” there is a deviation (a “zag”) that, in the eyes of some, set him apart and free him from what would be a restrictive classification for his “type” of mind and being. No set of beliefs for Adam, no subscriptions, no doctrines, only a tried and true method of mentally processing any proposition at all.

Since it’s not my place (or desire) to elaborate on the query-response Q offered in the original post (now quoted above) I’ve offered my own explanation for why I see a “fine line” between the positions.

The only thing further I would add at this point, and as I’ve asserted in the past... part of being an “Atheist” is being rational; exhibiting rational behavior. One uses a rationality that I think is appropriate to humans when one rationally concludes there is insignificant evidence to “believe” that gods exist. However, an “Atheist” that fits the common and correct definition of “Atheist” can also make any number of irrational decisions about other matters, though they are a true “Atheist.”

An “Atheist” can be a wife-beater, a petty thief, a gangster, or an otherwise unbalanced human who is capable of carrying out a variety of harmful, irrational actions. We don’t hear as much about them, true. This could be because in comparison, far fewer atheists have actively, publicly “taken up a cross” against religion, while the world has been, and is, full of religious extremist who only live for one type of martyrdom or another, and who have gladly sought it at the cost of millions of human lives.

As has been asserted previously, the fact that sound rationality (“sound” for that individual) was required to make the “I am an Atheist” conclusion is an integral part of what, in total, does constitute an “atheist.” But wearing the label of “atheist” does nothing more than make a general, though reasonably accurate, type of distinction about one’s view on a specific notion.

Adam, on the other hand, and due to the extent to which he’s explored, developed and uses the human tool of rational thought, doesn’t fit perfectly under even the most precisely or correctly designed label of “Atheism.”

I hoped I’ve succeeded in explaining why anyone might give the “fine line” distinction some credence. If not, then it might be best if I take a cue from our case study “Adam” and simply let it ride. It’s not important to me that my opinion on the matter be accepted. If over time a majority of humans determine that such a distinction is real and significant, I’m quite sure it won’t be me, or Q, or likely anyone we know here who’ll be credited with having noticed it before. I think this “strain” of rational human has been amongst us for a while. Just hasn’t been rational for them to call excess attention to themselves.

~~~

Thx,

Counterbalance

~~~

Btw, we’re currently in the throes of moving or would have gotten back to this sooner. Apologies for the delay.

Originally posted by Raithere


More than one even.

~Raithere


And to this, the question was asked:

Can you prove it?

Raithere,

For those you claim to love-- those whom you would have believe or accept that you do love--then it is only important that they have "proof" they consider adequate.

It is not incumbent upon you to prove to the rest of the world that you love a set number of individuals.

After all, you are not claiming to be a god, nor claiming that anyone must believe, or that anyone make a sacrifice based on such a belief.

But I bet you already knew that. ;)

~~~

Counterbalance

Counterbalance,

Well said. I'd just like to say I'm glad you said that. I just wish some of the others on this board had your clarity of mind...

Cheers!

Counterbalance and Tyler,

What...?

I Love and that's all! Love is extremely simple! There's nothing rational in Love!

I don't know why you try to put an Ocean inside of a bottle!!

Love,
Nelson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Can you prove it?

Proof would depend upon us agreeing upon the definition of love and making a determination based upon that definition of how it could be tested but I believe I could:

I can give you an accounting of my past behavior towards those people and you could observe my future behavior and make a determination whether I act in a manner that expresses love.

You could test the chemical and neurological state of my brain when I am having such feelings and see if these states correspond to the state called love.

You could post the question and analyze my response on a polygraph.

You could ask the people I claim to love what they think about my behavior towards them.

You could ask a third party who has witnessed my relationship what their observations are.

However:

Counterbalance was correct in his post. I don't owe it to you to prove my love. I am not asking you to believe it. I'm not arguing it as a point in a debate or asking you to acknowledge it as truth. Unlike some Christians I am not trying to change law or society based upon it. I didn't present it in support of a moral argument or present a moral judgment based upon it.

You, however, have brought God into these discussions/debates. You make moral assertions in your posts and claims of truth and then dance away from the responding inquiries. The onus of proof is then upon you.

I do know what you were attempting to get at here and that is the argument that God is like Love, something you cannot prove but have to feel in order to know. I have no problem with that; in fact some of these abstract, indefinable ideals are the very reason that I am agnostic rather than atheist. Whence comes love, beauty, and altruism? I don't know. Neither do I accept that they are merely physiological detritus, leftovers from our evolutionary past.

Still, this does not support an argument for God, particularly ones as impotent, self-contradictory, and poorly defined as they are in the major religions. And it definitely does not give me the right to assert my assumptions regarding this topic upon others. If you want to discuss what God might be, fine. But when you start telling me, essentially, that you know him personally and want to relate his truth I start asking some hard questions. Failing to answer, I must assume that you don't know. If you don't know, why should I believe your assertion, doesn't God know?

I find it telling that when I try to pin down your arguments that you dance away from them. Your primary methods of debate are avoidance and distraction with some confusion of terminology thrown in to muddy the waters. Due to this behavior, I infer that you really are not sure of what you believe. Not surprising since you look to the transcendental BG as a source of information. Again, I have no problem with your failure to be able to express your beliefs clearly. Belief is sometimes hard to nail down, based as it always is in a myriad of previous assumptions and beliefs. But if you participate in such discussions you need to define (fairly precisely) what it is you are discussing. Definition and expression are key to these discussions having any meaning at all. Otherwise it has no more meaning that me stating, "Weasels and chipmunks have fat hips." to every question.

Love ~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Can you prove it?

Proof would depend upon us agreeing upon the definition of love and making a determination based upon that definition of how it could be tested but I believe I could:

I can give you an accounting of my past behavior towards those people and you could observe my future behavior and make a determination whether I act in a manner that expresses love.

You could test the chemical and neurological state of my brain when I am having such feelings and see if these states correspond to the state called love.

You could post the question and analyze my response on a polygraph.

You could ask the people I claim to love what they think about my behavior towards them.

You could ask a third party who has witnessed my relationship what their observations are.

However:

Counterbalance was correct in his post. I don't owe it to you to prove my love. I am not asking you to believe it. I'm not arguing it as a point in a debate or asking you to acknowledge it as truth. Unlike some Christians I am not trying to change law or society based upon it. I didn't present it in support of a moral argument or present a moral judgment based upon it.

You, however, have brought God into these discussions/debates. You make moral assertions in your posts and claims of truth and then dance away from the responding inquiries. The onus of proof is then upon you.

I do know what you were attempting to get at here and that is the argument that God is like Love, something you cannot prove but have to feel in order to know. I have no problem with that; in fact some of these abstract, indefinable ideals are the very reason that I am agnostic rather than atheist. Whence comes love, beauty, and altruism? I don't know. Neither do I accept that they are merely physiological detritus, leftovers from our evolutionary past.

Still, this does not support an argument for God, particularly ones as impotent, self-contradictory, and poorly defined as they are in the major religions. And it definitely does not give me the right to force my assumptions upon others. If you want to discuss what God might be, fine. But when you start telling me, essentially, that you know him personally and want to relate his truth I start asking some hard questions. Failing to answer, I must assume that you don't know. If you don't know, why should I believe your assertion, doesn't God know?

I find it telling that when I try to pin down your arguments that you dance away from them. Your primary methods of debate are avoidance and distraction with some confusion of terminology thrown in to muddy the waters. Due to this behavior, I infer that you really are not sure of what you believe. Not surprising since you look to the transcendental BG as a source of information. Again, I have no problem with your failure to be able to express your beliefs clearly. Belief is sometimes hard to nail down, based as it always is in a myriad of previous assumptions and beliefs. But if you participate in such discussions you need to define (fairly precisely) what it is you are discussing. Definition and expression are key to these discussions having any meaning at all. Otherwise it has no more meaning than me stating, "Weasels and chipmunks have fat hips." to every question.

Love ~Raithere [/B]

Quote TS:"I Love and that's all! Love is extremely simple! There's nothing rational in Love!"

*Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional responce of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual "payment" given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an alturist would claim that the appreciation of another person's virtues is an act of selfishness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. *Ayn Rand*

I Love and that's all! Love is extremely simple! There's nothing rational in Love!

NEEEEP! Wrong.

If I 'love' because a person is cute, I am not truely in 'love'. I simply think they are cute.

If I truely love, it is because they have certain virtues of character, a certain personality, that I enjoy and admire.

As Ms.Rand pointed out, thanks Godless.

Sushi!,
Xev

No. True Love is Unconditional.

And it can't be explained rationally.
You are mistaken Love by love.

As I said before, Love is not merely a chemical reaction neither an emotion.
love is.
Do you see the difference between Love and love?

love is rational because it's limited to someone in special, because it's not unconditional. You have a reason to love. It's much more sexual attraction then actually Love. This love our society created is merely an attraction and a chemical reaction.

Love is a spiritual state that can't be explained rationally as it goes beyond words. It has no limitations, it's completly Unconditional. Trying to explain Love in words, rationally, is like trying to put an ocean inside a bottle. You will get only a very superficial idea. You will get only a little part of the ocean.

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by Raithere
Proof would depend upon us agreeing upon the definition of love and making a determination based upon that definition of how it could be tested but I believe I could:

I can give you an accounting of my past behavior towards those people and you could observe my future behavior and make a determination whether I act in a manner that expresses love.

You could test the chemical and neurological state of my brain when I am having such feelings and see if these states correspond to the state called love.

You could post the question and analyze my response on a polygraph.

You could ask the people I claim to love what they think about my behavior towards them.

You could ask a third party who has witnessed my relationship what their observations are.

However:

Counterbalance was correct in his post. I don't owe it to you to prove my love. I am not asking you to believe it. I'm not arguing it as a point in a debate or asking you to acknowledge it as truth. Unlike some Christians I am not trying to change law or society based upon it. I didn't present it in support of a moral argument or present a moral judgment based upon it.

You, however, have brought God into these discussions/debates. You make moral assertions in your posts and claims of truth and then dance away from the responding inquiries. The onus of proof is then upon you.

I do know what you were attempting to get at here and that is the argument that God is like Love, something you cannot prove but have to feel in order to know. I have no problem with that; in fact some of these abstract, indefinable ideals are the very reason that I am agnostic rather than atheist. Whence comes love, beauty, and altruism? I don't know. Neither do I accept that they are merely physiological detritus, leftovers from our evolutionary past.

Still, this does not support an argument for God, particularly ones as impotent, self-contradictory, and poorly defined as they are in the major religions. And it definitely does not give me the right to force my assumptions upon others. If you want to discuss what God might be, fine. But when you start telling me, essentially, that you know him personally and want to relate his truth I start asking some hard questions. Failing to answer, I must assume that you don't know. If you don't know, why should I believe your assertion, doesn't God know?

I find it telling that when I try to pin down your arguments that you dance away from them. Your primary methods of debate are avoidance and distraction with some confusion of terminology thrown in to muddy the waters. Due to this behavior, I infer that you really are not sure of what you believe. Not surprising since you look to the transcendental BG as a source of information. Again, I have no problem with your failure to be able to express your beliefs clearly. Belief is sometimes hard to nail down, based as it always is in a myriad of previous assumptions and beliefs. But if you participate in such discussions you need to define (fairly precisely) what it is you are discussing. Definition and expression are key to these discussions having any meaning at all. Otherwise it has no more meaning than me stating, "Weasels and chipmunks have fat hips." to every question.

So you can’t prove it then.

That’s cool, no need to sweat.

Love

Jan Ardena.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
Firstly: God is not a man. God can talk to everybody on this planet, at this very moment, and can hold conversation with them easily.

And you said you don't believe. :(

Secondly: Again, Why are you right? Why should the vedas hold more authority than the Wiccan rede, or the Bible? All of these have something to say reguarding God.

I don't know. :confused:


I don't know where the universe is,

Yoo standin init son! :eek:


I'm pretty confident that, one day, humanity may just discover where the universe came from.

I admire your faith.
Go on my son!!!!

And if they do discover a God, it will be interesting to see which god they'll find.

Maybe it will be this Chithuli feller, his popularity seems to be gaining some momentum.

Easily. My mother raised me to know what was right and wrong waaay before I grandmother took me to church for the first time.

Who told mom?

NOW You prove to me the BG is right, and the others are not, or I am no longer going to reguard any further statements you make about the BG. I have asked you multiple times to prove the BG, and you have not. I expect, the next thread, that you atleast try.

Easy, my mother told me, way before i read it for the first time.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
No. True Love is Unconditional.

And it can't be explained rationally.
You are mistaken Love by love.

As I said before, Love is not merely a chemical reaction neither an emotion.
love is.
Do you see the difference between Love and love?

love is rational because it's limited to someone in special, because it's not unconditional. You have a reason to love. It's much more sexual attraction then actually Love. This love our society created is merely an attraction and a chemical reaction.

Love is a spiritual state that can't be explained rationally as it goes beyond words. It has no limitations, it's completly Unconditional. Trying to explain Love in words, rationally, is like trying to put an ocean inside a bottle. You will get only a very superficial idea. You will get only a little part of the ocean.

Love,
Nelson


There's no thing such as "unconditional" love, you love an individual cause of his/her character, the values that the person may bring you, which reflects the value you have.

The unconditional love you speak of, is the sort of love you devote to a god, this is what you mean right?

*Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem; it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another--an intergrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.
Man is an end in himself. Romantic love--the profound, exalted, life-long "passion" that unites his mind and body in the sexual act--is the living testimony to that principle.

One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere "existence" of the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.

Let us answer the question: "Can you measure love?"
The concept "love" is formed by isolating two or more instances of the appropriate psychological process, then retaining its distinguishing characteristics (an ^EMOTION^ proceeding from the evaluation of an "existenten" as a positive value and as a source of pleasure) and omitting the object and the measurements of the process's intensity.*Ayn Rand*

To love something, or someone is to value. Unconditional love, is the kind of thing you are characterizing one devotes his entire life to some sort of supernatural being. This you may choose to do, however it's not love, its duty you speak of, the duty to love by the threat of ending up in hell, or some damnation for not believing your god, this is not love, this is fear.

Every thought, every emotion, that you may feel is indeed a chemical reaction this is the natural process of our minds, so it stands to reason that love for an individual as a sexual partner is a chemical reaction. However one decides wether one will pursue the love of an individual by the character a particular person may have, as well as the value he/or she may bring.

For instance, Xev mentioned"If I 'love' because a person is cute, I am not truely in 'love'. I simply think they are cute."

This person may be cute, however he may be a person with low self esteem, or simply one that does not hold the ideals Xev's seeks in a potential partner.

To love something which does not exist, or can't be proven to exist, an ideal of a utopia after life is an errational wish, of whims and desires of a non-existent. Therefore you may call this unconditional love, however to love an individual as such would most certainly be a mistake, unless you are willing to worship the ground he/she may walk on.

Originally posted by Counterbalance

In my opinion, Adam is a more evolved human being. A man before his time. Fortunately he (and the rest of mankind to a lesser extent) has evolved to such a point that he can live in the present world and among great numbers of people who are (for one reason or another) enslaved by deeply rooted habits of irrational thinking. Adam is not a superman as some philosophers have idealized, but rather a relatively rare human specimen that has realized more of his human potential than most others have to date. He is not necessarily the “epitome.” He is an “advancement.”

"Adam" is seriously drunk :p

I once herd (don't rember where) this quoteLove is a exsuse to say "there is something about you i cherish", There are different forms of love, love of nation, love of family, love of friends; all different, all love

Im not sure if that the exact quote but you get the piture

Jan,

Well, I'm glad we finally wrapped tha up. Since your incapable of proving to me that the BG is right, and that every other religion is false, I see no reason to even discuss it anymore.

From this time forward, any references you make to the BG, in any further arguements, will be ignored.

And here I was thinking the great Jan Ardena would " show me the way ". Well, so much for that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
[B]Jan,
Well, I'm glad we finally wrapped tha up. Since your incapable of proving to me that the BG is right, and that every other religion is false, I see no reason to even discuss it anymore.

Tell me Tinker, how can i prove anything to you.

From this time forward, any references you make to the BG, in any further arguements, will be ignored.

You mean you were paying attention before. :p

Love.

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So you can’t prove it then.

Weasels and chipmunks have fat hips.

See, I just did.

~Raithere

Tinker683,

Thank you.

~~~

Counterbalance

Jan,

Tell me Tinker, how can i prove anything to you.

First, you can explain to me how it is your know the BG was written by God. Then, you can prove this.

Next, you can explain to me why it holds any authority, and why I should listen to it's teachings rather than another "revealed" text.

Then you could prove it's historic authienticity(sp?).

And THEN you teach me the concepts of the BG, and we'll take it from there. This, however, requires that you do all of the above. Otherwise, the concepts of the BG mean nothing.

:)

Godless,

You gave me an inspiration for a more Essencial explanation of Unconditional Love. Thanks! :)

love
Is when you project your love into an object. As the object and you are separated, then, a separation from the object cause hurt.
You have a reason to project your Love on someone. It's a charactheristic that this person or this object has that attracts you. The object causes a feeling of external need

Love
Love is Unconditional. It's not projected, It's in YOURSELF. As this Love is not dependent on circumstances, like losing the object of your love, in the common love, this love doesn't cause hurt. This Love is self-sulfilling. It's not only self-Love but Love in Its Essence, pure and True Love.

Love,
Nelson

Recently, I read in a book something really interesting...

It was said in the book that ancient philosophers felt that promoting atheism publicly would endanger the philosopher himself, since it would render society immoral and anarchic!

Socrates learned this lesson by himself when he taught his atheist views to his students and they turned out to be a menace for the Athenian society!!!! :D:D:D:D

That's History... ;)

It seems that atheism creates immoral people...
And we can see it clearly in our world today... :(

Love,
Nelson

I could show you how your insult is wrong, but frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

I've given you no reason to insult me. I've treated you with courtesy and respect.

Oh yes, and Socrates was not an athiest per se, and he wasn't really a menace, but a decent man. Interesting parallel though.

"You have brought about my death in the belief that you will be delivered from submitting your conduct to criticism; but I say that the result will be just the opposite. You will have more critics, whom up till now I have restrained without your knowing it, and being younger they will be harsher to you and will cause you more annoyence."

Insult...? :confused: :confused: :confused:

...*sights...

You just called us all immoral. Good day, Nelson.

Socrates did... not me...

Love-love? :eek:

There are two aspects of man's existence which are the special province and expression ofhis sense of life: love & art.

I am refering here to romantic love, in the serious meaning of that term-as distinguished from the superficial infatuations of those whose sense of life is devoid of any consistent values, i.e., of any lsating emotions other than fear. Love is a response to values. It is with a person's sense of life that one falls in love--with that essential sum, that fundamental stand or way of facing existence, which is the essence of a personality. One falls in love with the embodiment of the values that formed a person's chaacter, which are reflected in his widest goals or smallest gestures, which create the style of his soul--the individual style of a unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable consciousness. It is one's own sense of life that acts as the selector, and responds to what it recongnizes as one's own basic values in the person of another. It is not a matter of professed convictions (though thesre are not irrevlevant): it is a matter of much more profound, conscious and subconscious harmony.
Many errors and tragic disillusionments are possible in this process of emotional recognition, since a sense of life, by itself, is not a reliable congnitive quide. And if there are degrees of evil, then one of the most evil consequences of mysticism--in terms of human suffering--is the belief that love is a matter of "the heart", not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy. Love is "the expression of philosophy" of a subconscious philosophical sum and perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then and only then it is the greatest reward of man's life. (Ayn Rand)

Now that!! is not giverish, as you wrote with the explanation of lower case love, Love thing you got going on? :bugeye:

As for Socrates, well he never wrote down his philosphical views, we have to depend on Plato, which was his pupil. Though many believe Plato's views may have somewhat plaqued the teaching of Socrates. In essense we got Plato's distorted views of what Socrates perhaps tought!!.

Godless,

Your explanation of love is good... :)

But what I'm talking about here is that

Love is love in the pure form.

And...

love is our Love projected in an object. Like a girl or a boy, or a car or whatever. ;)

I differentiate those two loves.

And my Unconditional Love is the first one. It's not projected, is an Universal Love.

Love,
Nelson

I suspected you were talking about, the use of the word love in metaphor fashion as to explain how much one cares for an object.

This could also be caried as love of career, etc... however this type of use of the word love, is purely in metaphor.

It explains how one cares for these objects, or things such as career, etc. I.E.. (I love sun shiny days), what have you. It's the feelings we all have, for joy.

Plain existence, one loves themselves, etc..

But to feel love or love a non-existence, or a supernatural phenomena which one can't even begin to explain is purely irrational, and subjective. Yes i do understand that to love or feel loved is as well a subjective however if the object exists, and can be explained it's totally different. One can care about the car, how the wind feels in their head etc., and use the word "love" metaphorically to explain these feelings.

Yes, and It can only be explained irrationally as you said. As I said before, we can't explain God, Love, rationally... :)

Now we are getting to somewhere... :)

How to explain It then?
Modern Psychology, Basic Neurology and Ancient Philosophies are good alternatives... ;)

Love,
Nelson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
But to feel love or love a non-existence, or a supernatural phenomena which one can't even begin to explain is purely irrational, and subjective.

God is non-existent to you, that is fair enough, but for you to say that God is non-existent to me is ludicrous.

If you want an explanataion of God then read the BG As it is.

Remember you cannot explain the love you have for other people in a comprehensable way, that could allow someone to understand what love is, neither can you prove that you love, or that love exists. It is entirely personal, as is love of God.

Yes i do understand that to love or feel loved is as well a subjective however if the object exists, and can be explained it's totally different.

So what about after the subject or object of love ceases to exist. Is it not still possible to love them, even more deeply perhaps?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
God is non-existent to you, that is fair enough, but for you to say that God is non-existent to me is ludicrous.

If you noticed, Godless states that it is irrational and subjective. You continually assert that God is an absolute/universal truth. Prove it.

Remember you cannot explain the love you have for other people in a comprehensable way, that could allow someone to understand what love is, neither can you prove that you love, or that love exists. It is entirely personal, as is love of God.

Love is an abstract concept that we use as a label for an experienced emotion. This emotion exists in the mind or "self-awareness", not in the external reality that we share. Does your love for anything affect me in any way? Does my love for anything affect you? Does it affect external reality? No it does not. Just the same, the experience you call God does not affect me or external reality.

So what about after the subject or object of love ceases to exist. Is it not still possible to love them, even more deeply perhaps?

That subject still exists in the mind, so yes it is possible to continue to love them.

~Raithere

Jan,

God is non-existent to you, that is fair enough, but for you to say that God is non-existent to me is ludicrous.No that doesn’t make sense. Either God exists or he doesn’t. From a given perspective it can be said that god does not exist. If that perspective is true then it is true for everyone. To say that he doesn’t exist for me but he might exist for you is nonsense. The existence of a god is not determined by individual beliefs.

If you want an explanation of God then read the BG As it is.There can be many explanations for something. That an explanation can be derived in no way determines whether the explanation represents truth or not. Explanations can be imaginative fantasies or truth.

BG is a mythological story that provides an explanation for a god. It doesn’t provide any mechanism to show whether the story is true or not.

The only way to distinguish between truth and fantasy is evidence. BG doesn’t provide any evidence so we have no reason to believe that the explanations offered by BG is anything more than a fantasy.

BG, in parts, is an interesting read and contains some useful independent (of theism) guidelines for an effective lifestyle, but it otherwise provides no help as to the question of the existence or non-existence of gods.

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
If you noticed, Godless states that it is irrational and subjective. You continually assert that God is an absolute/universal truth. Prove it.

Subjective yes, past a point, irrational, depends on the individual.

Love is an abstract concept that we use as a label for an experienced emotion.

That is your own subjective veiw.
If it is an experience as you stated, then that experience is different according to each individual, even if i were to agree with you.

This emotion exists in the mind or "self-awareness", not in the external reality that we share.

Are you saying we cannot share what is in our minds with others?

Does your love for anything affect me in any way?

If you believe this to be a relative world as i do, then yes.

No it does not.

How do you know?
Do you know everything there is to know about love?

Just the same, the experience you call God does not affect me or external reality.

For you to be sure of that, you would have to know everything, as the 'experience i call God' is the cause of everything. So before you can say He doesn't exist, you would have to know that He didn't exist if you were being honest with yourself, therefore you would have to have proof of evidense.
The experience i call God, is personal to me and whoever wants to have a relationship with Him, therefore it does not matter whether i prove my experience to you or not.
All you have at your disposal is personal insult, if you should choose, but apart from that you have no proof of evidence of anything, as you do not wish to have that experience.

So what about after the subject or object of love ceases to exist. Is it not still possible to love them, even more deeply perhaps?

That subject still exists in the mind, so yes it is possible to continue to love them.

Are you saying love is delusional then, or is it a reality even though there is no proof of evidence?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Love is an abstract concept that we use as a label for an experienced emotion.
That is your own subjective veiw.

What else is it then? Can you give me a full definition of love? Please note that simply equating terms is not a definition (i.e. Love is God, is not a definition.).

If it is an experience as you stated, then that experience is different according to each individual, even if i were to agree with you.

That is precisely what I said.

Are you saying we cannot share what is in our minds with others?

In the ultimate sense, yes, that is what I'm saying. Unless you've found a way to transfer you emotions and experiences directly into my mind. Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing. The shared vocabulary is subjective on both ends of the conversation. This is why it is so important to define your terms.

Example: What green is to you is not green to me. I've a partial red/green color deficiency. Can I see green? Yes, I am not color blind. But what I see is not the same as what you see. Thus when you use the word green, or the color green in a painting what you are trying to convey is not what I experience in my mind.

Does that mean we can't, or don't, share anything at all? No, it doesn't. We can share things that exist in our mutual external reality. I can prove to you that you can hammer a nail though a piece of wood by doing it in front of you. I could hand you the hammer and nail and you can do it yourself. But if you are skeptical of me and all I do is say "I've done it before." Then we have nothing in common to agree upon.

If you believe this to be a relative world as i do, then yes.

What do you mean by a relative world?

How do you know?
Do you know everything there is to know about love?

Yes. I do. Love is an internal concept. We can try to share this concept. We can try and relate it to each other. We can try to express it in words, art, music. But until we develop some mind to mind link we will, in the ultimate sense, fail. The concept of love is like the concept blue. I can say blue to you. It gives you some idea of what I mean but, in the ultimate sense, it fails. I could be more specific; Midnight blue, sky blue, periwinkle blue? Even these concepts fail the perception of the mind. I could relate a particular frequency of light, this would be much more specific, but still ultimately fail for perception is in the individual mind. We can only know, ultimately, what it mean to ourselves.

Do I know in any absolute sense that your feeling of love doesn't affect me? No. But then there is nothing that can be known in an absolute sense. But if your assertion is that it does you'll need to demonstrate it before I even come close to believing you.

For you to be sure of that, you would have to know everything, as the 'experience i call God' is the cause of everything. So before you can say He doesn't exist, you would have to know that He didn't exist if you were being honest with yourself, therefore you would have to have proof of evidense.

No. I know that your concept of God does not affect my reality. If it does, I have yet to see any single miniscule piece of evidence for it. I also have yet to see any evidence that it affects the external reality that we share. But you are correct; I cannot know for sure. I don't claim to. You are the one claim to know the absolute truth. Thus the onus of proof is on you. So far you have failed.

The experience i call God, is personal to me and whoever wants to have a relationship with Him, therefore it does not matter whether i prove my experience to you or not.

I concur. So why do you feel the need to try to prove it to me? Why do you keep proclaiming that you own the truth? It is only when you do these things that I ask you to prove it. When you admit that it is an internal experience I have no problem with it.

All you have at your disposal is personal insult, if you should choose, but apart from that you have no proof of evidence of anything, as you do not wish to have that experience.

I truly try not to stoop to personal insult. Apart from that I do have evidence for things. I have evidence that the Earth is spherical, that bricks are hard. I have also experienced God. Unfortunately, I have no proof or evidence of that experience and I would not try and convince anyone that my experience is more truthful or correct than anyone else's. For all I can prove, it might have simply been a delusion.

Are you saying love is delusional then, or is it a reality even though there is no proof of evidence?

I already said it. Love is internal, subjective, emotive, and ultimately unrelateable. Is it a reality? Yes. Does it exist in all realities? No. Does it change the internal reality of the one experiencing it? Yes. Does it directly affect our shared external reality? Not that I've seen. Do people act upon this internal reality and therefore change the external reality? Yes. Do I think love is a good thing? Yes.

~Raithere

No matter how one writes an explanation, the views of each of us of what was said is percieived differently by each individual.

Specially thieists:rolleyes:

Jan's argument reminds me of George H. Smith's book (Atheism, The Case Against God) Part 2: Reason, Faith And Revelation.

To quote Him on The Attack on Reason:

"Christian Faith is not merely believing that there is a god. It is believing that there is a god no matter what the evidence on the question may be" i.e., ("Have faith," in the Christian sense, means "make yourself believe that there is a god without regard to evidence." Christian faith is a habit of flouring reason in forming and maintaining one's answer to the question whether there is a god.(Pages, 100-101)

quote Jan: "God is non-existent to you, that is fair enough, but for you to say that God is non-existent to me is ludicrous."

in other words she is claiming here since I lack faith in god, I should not judge her faith in god.

I think she's right to claim here, we don't know of her experiences, though they sound ludicrous to us, however we should still not judge. Truly though the burden of proof still by all means falls on the thiest, as it always has. Thiests making claims of supernatural existence without proof, is moot, however the same falls on athiests we cannot claim that the supernatural does not exist, we can only state that there's no evidence of it's existence! therefore we reject the notion of the supernatural because of lack of evidence.

As for love, well it is defianable, an emotional subjective feeling of great care for an object or person.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
You said...

Love is an abstract concept that we use as a label for an experienced emotion.

I said...

That is your own subjective veiw.

You said....

What else is it then? Can you give me a full definition of love? Please note that simply equating terms is not a definition (i.e. Love is God, is not a definition.).

Using that description, you can say that all feelings are just labels for an experienced emotion, but what is an experienced emotion. Could it be that emotion is an abstract concept for an experienced feeling. The truth is you have no real idea other than how it relates to you. This is where mundane science is useless. Einstein and Newton were well aware of this cut off point.
Upon what do you base your findings, the dictionary, so-called experts or personal experience or even all.
You say “Love is God, is not a definition” but it makes far more sense that love originates from a person than a concept that originates from another concept which cannot be explained but can easily be perceived, or through chemicals in the brain.
For you love may be just a concept or chemicals and that would allow you to act accordingly, but for everybody love seems to be similar but different according to the consciousness of the individual, therefore everybody acts according to their particular consciousness.

In the ultimate sense, yes, that is what I'm saying. Unless you've found a way to transfer you emotions and experiences directly into my mind.

So what about music, books, relationships, television, word of mouth, radio, fashion, magazines, doesn’t these have an effect on the mind, thereby shaping it, therefore creating mindsets.
Are you telling me you have not been influence at all by anything?
Can you say for sure that you are not hypnotised at present and are acting out the will of someone else by sticking to your mindset, not even in the slightest?

Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.

How do you know?
Based on the propoganda put forth by USA and UK after 9-11, some people immediately went out and killed or brutalised, not only muslims but seikhs, because it said on the telly that it was a Islamic attack, and because some muslims wear turbans, seikhs must also be muslim. Do you think that would have still occurred had the two powers not jump immediately to that conclusion?

Look at the music industry, the film industry, the fashion industry, the majority of people are totally influenced by these, they live their lives according to these things. Look at speech, how that has changed, with the intervention of ‘slang’ people change the way they speak, they change the way they dress, they change their ideals, they change the way they eat etc according to outside influence. Everywhere you turn there is someone else’s influence, our minds are not entirely our own.
Doesn’t that famous ‘war of the worlds’ radio broadcast tell you anything about the fickleness of the human mind?

The shared vocabulary is subjective on both ends of the conversation. This is why it is so important to define your terms.

It is no more important for me as it is for you to define terms, overall knowledge is subjective.

Example: What green is to you is not green to me. I've a partial red/green color deficiency. Can I see green? Yes, I am not color blind.

Knowledge is not all about what you can see. Sight is not the only form of accessing knowledge. You can still understand that green is a colour even though you can’t see it. None of us can see air but we understand, according to our concious level, what air is and how it works, manifests itself and it components.

But what I see is not the same as what you see.

How can we be sure it ever is?
Through higher understanding maybe?

Thus when you use the word green, or the color green in a painting what you are trying to convey is not what I experience in my mind.

But you have your own experience of green, otherwise why are you talking about it. Green does exist to you even though you can’t see it, you can understand it from other people.

No, it doesn't. We can share things that exist in our mutual external reality.

And what is that mutual external reality?

I can prove to you that you can hammer a nail though a piece of wood by doing it in front of you.

But suppose I don’t have arms, does that experience not then exist?

I could hand you the hammer and nail and you can do it yourself. But if you are skeptical of me and all I do is say "I've done it before." Then we have nothing in common to agree upon.

But I also have a brain that can understand this can be done even without you intervention.

What do you mean by a relative world?

Everything is related, so what we do affects the perception of the world, for example before Jimmy Hendrix came on the scene, rock and roll guitar had an identity of its own and then came Jimmy who took it to another level, and it has carried on progressing. He helped change the perception of rock guitar by doing what had been done before but changed its outlook amd expression.
Do you know everything there is to know about love?

Yes. I do.

I seriously don’t think so.

Love is an internal concept.

Internal yes but concept no, at least according to my experience of love, so you don’t know everything there is to know about love otherwise I would have no reason to disagree with you.

But until we develop some mind to mind link we will, in the ultimate sense, fail.

According to your understanding but not mine.

The concept of love is like the concept blue. I can say blue to you. It gives you some idea of what I mean but, in the ultimate sense, it fails. I could be more specific; Midnight blue, sky blue, periwinkle blue? Even these concepts fail the perception of the mind.

That is because blue is not love, you can’t see ‘love’ you feel love, when you say I’m feeling blue then one can understand that you are feeling down, it doesn’t matter whether you understand the colour blue, this concept of 'blue' came about through outside influence, it is not natural.

We can only know, ultimately, what it mean to ourselves.

But what you fail to realise is that it is still knowledge that can be understood, but not in an animalistic sense, like mundane science would have us believe, but in a higher sense, that which is important to our (higher) ‘selves.’

Do I know in any absolute sense that your feeling of love doesn't affect me? No. But then there is nothing that can be known in an absolute sense.

You speak for yourself.

But if your assertion is that it does you'll need to demonstrate it before I even come close to believing you.

It doesn’t matter whether you believe me or not, it doesn’t work like that.
If you wish to understand anything about what I term higher understanding, then you have travel that road yourself, because it is personal.

No. I know that your concept of God does not affect my reality. If it does, I have yet to see any single miniscule piece of evidence for it.

Tell me, what exactly do you have evidence of?

But you are correct; I cannot know for sure. I don't claim to.

For one who says he knows everything about love, you don’t sound too sure of anything.

You are the one claim to know the absolute truth.

I know of the Absolute Truth, getting to know Him is my work.

Thus the onus of proof is on you. So far you have failed.

There is no need of proof, I already percieve the Absolute Truth and therefore have not failed. What you mean is I have failed to convince you, but the irony is, I’m not try to convince you, we are simply debating.

I concur. So why do you feel the need to try to prove it to me?

In what way have I tried to ‘prove’ to you, can you show me any posts.

Why do you keep proclaiming that you own the truth?

Again, can you show me any posts which say ‘I’ own the truth.

It is only when you do these things that I ask you to prove it.

What things?

Aren’t there people here who say God doesn’t exist, in my book that is just as dedicated as saying God does exist. The difference is, these people do try and offer proof and they have failed miserably, that is why they become (violent) offensive.

When you admit that it is an internal experience I have no problem with it.

I know what I know through my own experience first and foremost, then I can relate it to other peoples experience, therefore I don’t have to admit anything. Why should I have to admit I am hungry, if so, I know I’m hungry and can therefore understand that other people get hungry.

I truly try not to stoop to personal insult.

Glad to hear it.

Apart from that I do have evidence for things. I have evidence that the Earth is spherical, that bricks are hard. I have also experienced God.

Your evidence is knowledge, your experience confirms the knowledge.

Unfortunately, I have no proof or evidence of that experience and I would not try and convince anyone that my experience is more truthful or correct than anyone else's.

Was it not truthful to you?
If yes then why try to find evidence, what is more factual than the truth.

For all I can prove, it might have simply been a delusion.

‘I can’ and ‘might’ don’t sit well in the same sentence, they are contradictory. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

"You say “Love is God, is not a definition” but it makes far more sense that love originates from a person than a concept that originates from another concept which cannot be explained but can easily be perceived, or through chemicals in the brain."

What I love is how theists seem to think they are the ones with strength and faith. Theists believe all the answers are present and that we have them all. The true strength is in realizing that we don't know a heck of a lot.

Love Is God is a simple answer. It's an answer that opens an easy way out for people who can't handle the fact that we don't know everything. Love can not be expressed through words. As I've said, language is just an advanced form of grunting and is a poor attempt at art, which is an attempt to immitate nature. Love is Love is about all we can really say.


"Knowledge is not all about what you can see. Sight is not the only form of accessing knowledge. You can still understand that green is a colour even though you can’t see it. None of us can see air but we understand, according to our concious level, what air is and how it works, manifests itself and it components."

Bet you a million dollars it's impossible to picture a new colour in your mind. A totally new colour beyond what any human has ever seen.


"There is no need of proof, I already percieve the Absolute Truth and therefore have not failed. What you mean is I have failed to convince you, but the irony is, I’m not try to convince you, we are simply debating."

Yup, sounds about right. Like most theists you like the idea that it's possible to know everything. Ignorance at it's highest.


"Everything is related, so what we do affects the perception of the world, for example before Jimmy Hendrix came on the scene, rock and roll guitar had an identity of its own and then came Jimmy who took it to another level, and it has carried on progressing. He helped change the perception of rock guitar by doing what had been done before but changed its outlook amd expression."

Jimi was acid rock. Though he changed guitar forever, it was still closer to acid rock.


"That is because blue is not love, you can’t see ‘love’ you feel love, when you say I’m feeling blue then one can understand that you are feeling down, it doesn’t matter whether you understand the colour blue, this concept of 'blue' came about through outside influence, it is not natural."

This goes beyond confusing me. Blue is a concept that came from outside influence? Explain please.


Bah,. more later..computers class over.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
I think she's right to claim here, we don't know of her experiences, though they sound ludicrous to us,

Hahahah!!!!:p
You fool, you say "you don't know of my experiences," but they "sound ludicrous" to you. :p

Truly though the burden of proof still by all means falls on the thiest, as it always has.

What?......is it like a rule or something. :p
Can you get me a copy....don't want to be breakin' any laws and shit! :p

As for love, well it is defianable, an emotional subjective feeling of great care for an object or person.

Why thank you Godless, i can stop believing in god, now you cleared that one up. :D

Lets go and indulge in some blood sports....you wit me?:p:D

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Could it be that emotion is an abstract concept for an experienced feeling. The truth is you have no real idea other than how it relates to you. This is where mundane science is useless.

Jan, this is exactly what I've been saying. I'm not saying that we don't actually experience emotions, only that this experience is entirely inside the individual and has no reality outside of that individual. It is entirely personal and subjective.

And I agree that science has proven pretty lame with regards to psychology. We've mapped some structures of the brain, we've figured out some of the neurological and chemical aspects of our mental processes but we're still at the Neolithic level of understanding thought, emotion, and the consciousness. Hell, we still use electro-shock therapy, thorazine, and lithium to treat patients. This is the equivalent of using a hammer to fix a radio.

love seems to be similar but different according to the consciousness of the individual, therefore everybody acts according to their particular consciousness.

Are you even reading my posts? This is exactly what I'm saying… though I believe I said it a bit more clearly than "love seems to be similar but different".

Are you telling me you have not been influence at all by anything?

No, I'm not. Wherever did you get that idea?

Can you say for sure that you are not hypnotised at present and are acting out the will of someone else by sticking to your mindset, not even in the slightest?

This is a meaningless exercise. Just as well to wonder, like Chuang Tzu, whether I am a butterfly dreaming I am a man. What is the point you're trying to get to?

Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.
How do you know?

I already gave you an excellent example of color deficiency. No two people's perceptions are the same. No two people share the same mind or even one identical emotion.

I did not say you couldn't relate you emotion or engender emotions in another. You, quite obviously, can. I said that you can never experience exactly what another person experiences.

It is no more important for me as it is for you to define terms, overall knowledge is subjective.

I didn't say it was more important for you than for me. I was stating that it is important, in fact necessary, to do so in order to have any meaningful conversation.

Knowledge is not all about what you can see. Sight is not the only form of accessing knowledge.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I'm citing an example. I never even intimated that sight is the only source of knowledge.

How can we be sure (that what I see is what you see) ever is?

We can't be, that's my point. In fact, regarding my color-deficiency I can prove that we don't. You recall those eye tests with all the little circles of color that made a 7 or a 9 or some such figure? Where a normally sighted person sees a 7, I see the 9. Proof. Verifiable, testable, repeatable.

Green does exist to you even though you can’t see it, you can understand it from other people.

No. You can't. Try it. Define green so that a person who was blind from birth can 'know' it. The best you can give them is a definition built upon abstract concepts… this is not the same as experience.

And what is that mutual external reality?

Just that. The world of shared experience. The place where results are repeatable. The place, outside our minds, where we meet.

But I also have a brain that can understand this can be done even without you intervention.

Only due to your own experience of our shared reality. I gave you a mundane example to prove a point.

What we do affects the perception of the world.

Sure can. It can also change the world itself, not just our perceptions of it, and then others can experience the change. I didn't state anything contrary to this.

this concept of 'blue' came about through outside influence, it is not natural.

Ah yes. Reality is an illusion. I forgot you believe the BG.

But what you fail to realise is that (blue) is still knowledge that can be understood

You're getting dangerously close to stating nonsense. I could read that last part as knowledge can be known.
I'll take it differently though and reply;

Knowledge can be understood but understanding does not imply "knowing" or experience. I can understand a description of what it feel like to bungee jump but until I've done it I don't "know", I haven't experienced it.

There is no need of proof, I already percieve the Absolute Truth and therefore have not failed. What you mean is I have failed to convince you, but the irony is, I’m not try to convince you, we are simply debating.

You’ve done less than fail to convince me. You've failed to put together a valid argument that proves your assertion. Which, I might add, is the whole point of debate. Or are you merely arguing for argument's sake?

In what way have I tried to ‘prove’ to you, can you show me any posts.
Can you show me any posts which say ‘I’ own the truth.

I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing to your assertion that you know the truth in an absolute sense. Which you just stated above; "I already percieve the Absolute Truth". Thank you for providing me with such a convenient example.

Aren’t there people here who say God doesn’t exist, in my book that is just as dedicated as saying God does exist. The difference is, these people do try and offer proof and they have failed miserably, that is why they become (violent) offensive.

Anyone who states, absolutely, that God doesn't exist is presuming to know everything. These people are few and are guilty of faulty reasoning. What you will find is people who state that they see no evidence for God, or that the preponderance of "evidence" used to support the reality of God is wrong, and thus choose not to believe in something for which there is no evidence. According to history, it is usually the people who claim to know God that become violent and offensive.

Was it not truthful to you?
If yes then why try to find evidence, what is more factual than the truth.

Because I am a rational person. I don't stop questioning with my first assumption of truth. If I didn't try to find evidence for things I thought were true I would still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny because at one time I did and I would never have questioned it. And I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

You do the same thing. Unless, that is, you believe in everything you believed as a child. If not, if you've rid yourself of childhood misconceptions, you're merely guilty of failing to question your beliefs at some arbitrary point in your life. Most people do, at least with certain subjects.

For all I can prove, it might have simply been a delusion.
‘I can’ and ‘might’ don’t sit well in the same sentence, they are contradictory. :)

Really? Then I guess I can not use can't in the same sentence since the meaning of can and not are contradictory. I can, however, wonder if you might be wrong. Oops! I did it again!

Why don't (do not) you learn more about grammar before you try to deconstruct my sentences?

~Raithere

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
I think she's right to claim here, we don't know of her experiences, though they sound ludicrous to us,

Hahahah!!!!:p
You fool, you say "you don't know of my experiences," but they "sound ludicrous" to you. :p

Truly though the burden of proof still by all means falls on the thiest, as it always has.

What?......is it like a rule or something. :p
Can you get me a copy....don't want to be breakin' any laws and shit! :p

As for love, well it is defianable, an emotional subjective feeling of great care for an object or person.

Why thank you Godless, i can stop believing in god, now you cleared that one up. :D

Lets go and indulge in some blood sports....you wit me?:p:D

Love

Jan Ardena.

Thank you Jan, you just proved my point: When I was trying to defend your right to believe whatever the hell you believe in, your "ludicrous mind" interpreted what I said as an insult to you!!. :confused:

Who is the "fool" here?:eek:

Tyler,

Love Is God is a simple answer. It's an answer that opens an easy way out for people who can't handle the fact that we don't know everything. Love can not be expressed through words. As I've said, language is just an advanced form of grunting and is a poor attempt at art, which is an attempt to immitate nature. Love is Love is about all we can really say.

"Love is God" is an attempt to expalin Love beyond words.
There's nothing "supernatural". Supernatural is actually something that can't be explained by words and rational thinking.

Using Eastern Philosophy...
It's like drinking tea instead of eating the cup. You use the cup (word) to carry the tea (meaning), but what you really want to absorb is the tea (meaning) not the cup (word).

You can say Love, or Amour, or Amor, or Amore... All those words mean the same thing, they are just in different "packages" or in different "cups" as the example above... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
"Love is God" is an attempt to expalin Love beyond words.
There's nothing "supernatural". Supernatural is actually something that can't be explained by words and rational thinking.

You can say Love, or Amour, or Amor, or Amore... All those words mean the same thing, they are just in different "packages" or in different "cups" as the example above... ;)

Problem is, you need a definition for God then. Equating two terms doesn't give us much of an example if you can't adequately define either of them. Or rather, as in this case, there are many definitions for both.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Problem is, you need a definition for God then.

If you want a defimition of God, then read 'Bagavad Gita As it is,'
Brahma Samitah or Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam. If you don't wish to broaden your mind by reading, and you don't take our word for it, then what is the use of you questions. If you are serious, then at least take the time out, you just may learn something.

equatingo terms doesn't give us much of an example if you can't adequately define either of them.

But it would if you could define them, take it to the next stage, otherwise your wasting your time, find out for sure.

Sorry to cut in here R, i will reply shortly to your last post.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If you want a defimition of God, then read 'Bagavad Gita As it is,'
Brahma Samitah or Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam. If you don't wish to broaden your mind by reading, and you don't take our word for it, then what is the use of you questions. If you are serious, then at least take the time out, you just may learn something.

I have read the BG. I've also read quite a few of the commentaries on the BG from "BG As it is". I have scanned some of the Bhagavata Purana I saw nothing to recommend any of them as truth over any other work of fiction or ancient mythology. Perhaps you might point out something I missed. Some kernel of proof that you seem to believe is there. Bring it out for examination and discussion.

As I've mentioned before; In my opinion, the BG is a bunch of poorly reasoned, self contradictory, transcendental philosophy supported only by it's own circular logic and appeal to authority that it is not able to verify.

"BG As it is" is commentary and explanation (I use the term loosely) of the BG by some self-proclaimed guru. Why should I accept his authority or that claimed by the BG. I too, can write a book and claim Krsna wrote it or inspired me to write it. I too, can claim I've reached enlightenment and wish to teach others. Many other religions claim the same thing. So do many cult leaders. You're explanations are self-serving and meaningless, when you even give them.

Frankly, I'm getting rather tired of your repetition. The only "proof" you ever give for your arguments is self-referential and circular. Why don't you read it yourself, extract and post "the definitive" definition for God. "BG is the truth" may be your mantra but it means nothing of import to me.

BTW I read approximately 500 - 1000 pages per week, not including what I read at work or online. Topics include: Fiction, History, Science (All areas), Religion, Archaeology, Skepticism, Criminology, Politics, Sociology, Linguistics… just to name some of my primary areas of interest. In other words, I have taken the time out to learn something and do so on a daily basis. I take offense to your implication that I don't.

~Raithere

Nelson:
It's like drinking tea instead of eating the cup.

You mean I'm...not supposed to eat the cup?

That explains a lot! Thanks Nelson! ;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
Are you even reading my posts? This is exactly what I'm saying… though I believe I said it a bit more clearly than "love seems to be similar but different".

You said love is an ‘abstract’ ‘concept,’ that is not what I am saying.
abstract- to do with or existing in thought rather than matter, or in theory rather than practise; not tangible or concrete.

I believe love to be very subtle but tangible, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it is non-existent, as anything, it can be perceived through the senses, mind and intelligence, should you want to. You also described it as a ‘concept’ that ‘we use’ as a ‘label’ to describe an experienced emotion, again we are not on the same wave length. To me love is natural, one doesn’t need to be taught how to love, love in its highest expression is un-conditional, the most common expression of unconditional love, is the love between mother and child, especially at the baby stage. The mother doesn’t ask for anything but gives everything despite the childs unawareness. I know nowadays things seem to be changing with regards to social conditioning, but nevertheless it is still very prominent, not because it is a concept, because it is natural.

So in answer to your question, yes I am reading your posts.

No, I'm not. Wherever did you get that idea?

I asked if you were saying we cannot share what is in our minds You said, “No Unless you've found a way to transfer you emotions and experiences directly into my mind.”

Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.
How do you know?

I already gave you an excellent example of color deficiency. No two people's perceptions are the same. No two people share the same mind or even one identical emotion.

You may never percieve the colour green through your eyes, but you can understand that green is a colour, and its significance in life, it may not be ultimate but it is still knowledge. I may never understand high-level mathematics, but I do understand mathematics according to my level of consciousness, and that is still knowledge.

You, quite obviously, can. I said that you can never experience exactly what another person experiences.

You could never know that for sure.

It is no more important for me as it is for you to define terms, overall knowledge is subjective.

I didn't say it was more important for you than for me. I was stating that it is important, in fact necessary, to do so in order to have any meaningful conversation.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I'm citing an example. I never even intimated that sight is the only source of knowledge.

There is no need for that kind of remark, let us act civilised.

How can we be sure (that what I see is what you see) ever is?

Define green so that a person who was blind from birth can 'know' it. The best you can give them is a definition built upon abstract concepts… this is not the same as experience.

Green is real, there is no need to give abstract concepts, you can tell them green is a colour, you can say the grass is green, and all other things, because it is real. If what you say is true, then there is no need to teach a blind man anything as he can’t see anything. The blind mans only defect is his sight, he still has other knowledge acquiring senses., and hopefully, still wants to learn about his environment.

Only due to your own experience of our shared reality. I gave you a mundane example to prove a point.

That’s one way I agree, but I would also say that it could be worked out.

Ah yes. Reality is an illusion. I forgot you believe the BG.

So you don’t understand the BG.

Knowledge can be understood but understanding does not imply "knowing" or experience. I can understand a description of what it feel like to bungee jump but until I've done it I don't "know", I haven't experienced it.

They are different stages of knowledge, but knowledge all the same.

You’ve done less than fail to convince me.

Why do you think I’m trying to convince you?

You've failed to put together a valid argument that proves your assertion.

According to you.

Which you just stated above; "I already percieve the Absolute Truth". Thank you for providing me with such a convenient example.

Since when does ‘perceive’ means ‘know.’

Anyone who states, absolutely, that God doesn't exist is presuming to know everything. These people are few and are guilty of faulty reasoning.

Almost everybody who perceives themselves as ‘atheist’ as at some stage during my time here stated that God does not exist.

According to history, it is usually the people who claim to know God that become violent and offensive.

Well this board is on to a historical breakthrough, congratulations.

Because I am a rational person. I don't stop questioning with my first assumption of truth.

Have you any idea how nonsensical that sounds.
Truth isn’t an assumption, it has to be actual, by its very nature, otherwise there is no such thing as truth.
We only need evidence to substantiate something we are not sure of, you are not sure as to the existence of God, I am. I am not trying to convince you of anything, because I know from my own experience that the chances of you being convinced by me are almost zero, especially in your current frame of mind.

If I didn't try to find evidence for things I thought were true I would still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny because at one time I did and I would never have questioned it. And I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

Funny that, I never believed in those two things at all. I played along with the santa thing because to a kid it is exciting, but believe, nah!
It was quite obvious to me that this big fat guy couldn’t fit down our chimeny.

You do the same thing.

You are really insulting aren’t you?
You’ve no idea what I do.

Unless, that is, you believe in everything you believed as a child.

Now that’s just plain silly.

Most people do, at least with certain subjects.

Have you asked most people?

As I've mentioned before; In my opinion, the BG is a bunch of poorly reasoned, self contradictory, transcendental philosophy supported only by it's own circular logic and appeal to authority that it is not able to verify.

I don’t think you understood it, because there is obviously more to it than.

Ah well your loss. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.

I don’t think you understood it, because there is obviously more to it than that.

Raith, if I might interject here.

Don't even give any sort of reguard to any of Jan's statements reguarding the BG. I asked him a while back to prove it, and he didn't. Why? At this point, I can only speculate because their isn't much to prove.

So, for future reference, just consider all references to the BG void.

Jan seems to be rather pathetic when it comes to acually providing proof for his claims. Much like most thiests.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I believe love to be very subtle but tangible, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it is non-existent, as anything, it can be perceived through the senses, mind and intelligence, should you want to.

Tangible is generally used to describe something physical, touchable or palpable. Is this how you meant it?

If love can be perceived through the senses (sight, touch, taste, hearing, or smell) it can be verified in the real world. It would have a physical attribute (such as mass) or a measurable affect (such as acceleration). Tell me then, of a test that will verify the presence of love.

Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.
How do you know?

Perhaps, for you, a poem about a tree is the same as experiencing it in the now. For me, and I believe for most people, being able to see, touch, taste, smell, and hear a tree is rather different than the mere words. Words can evoke memories of an experience but memory too is not the same as experiencing something in the present. And what if one has not already had such an experience? If one has not sensed a tree, mere words are a pale comparison.

You may never percieve the colour green through your eyes, but you can understand that green is a colour, and its significance in life, it may not be ultimate but it is still knowledge.

I did not say that if one was unable to have an experience one could not have an understanding or knowledge about the subject of that experience. What I am saying is that understanding and knowledge are not the same as the actual experience.

There is no need for that kind of remark, let us act civilised.

Sorry if I got a bit edgy but I get frustrated at your continued straw-man arguments. I did not say "Sight was the only form of accessing knowledge." Therefore your arguement against it is meaningless.

Define green so that a person who was blind from birth can 'know' it. The best you can give them is a definition built upon abstract concepts… this is not the same as experience.

Green is real, there is no need to give abstract concepts, you can tell them green is a colour, you can say the grass is green, and all other things, because it is real. If what you say is true, then there is no need to teach a blind man anything as he can’t see anything. The blind mans only defect is his sight, he still has other knowledge acquiring senses., and hopefully, still wants to learn about his environment.

You continue to build straw-man arguments. I have never stated that sight is the only means to gain knowledge. You are arguing against something that I have not said.

I will reiterate, yet again, with an example: A blind man can never experience the color green… therefore how can you convey the experience of the color green to a blind man? Grass is green, yes. But if I give a blind man a handful of grass can he feel the "green" of it? Can he smell the "green"? No. Therefore he has no experience of it.

That’s one way I agree, but I would also say that it could be worked out.

Then using the example above demonstrate how you would covey the color green to a blind man so that he would have the experience of green not just a definition built of abstract concepts.

You've failed to put together a valid argument that proves your assertion.
According to you.

Then please repeat it.

Truth isn’t an assumption, it has to be actual, by its very nature, otherwise there is no such thing as truth.

I didn't say truth was an assumption (once again, the straw-man argument).

We only need evidence to substantiate something we are not sure of, you are not sure as to the existence of God, I am.

How else can one be sure other than by evidence? Are you telling me that from birth you knew the BG and the Vedas? If not, please show me the evidence you use to substantiate it.

I am not trying to convince you of anything, because I know from my own experience that the chances of you being convinced by me are almost zero, especially in your current frame of mind.

I'm not asking you to convince me… that would be extremely unlikely. I am asking you to put forth some sort of valid argument. Appeal to authority and circular logic do not constitute a valid argument. Neither do straw-man attacks invalidate my arguments.

You are really insulting aren’t you?
You’ve no idea what I do.

I'm not trying to be insulting here.

My point is that people change their beliefs over time. I used the example of childhood beliefs as an example. I hardly feel the need to prove that people's beliefs change from childhood to adulthood. In fact, you confirmed this assertion when you commented that my statement "Unless, that is, you believe in everything you believed as a child." was "just plain silly".

What I'm getting at here is that the things you believed were true when you were a child you no longer believe. Your perception of what was true changed. How then can you be sure you have arrived at the truth at this point in your life? Do not the same principles of evidence and examination apply?

I don’t think you understood it, because there is obviously more to it than.

That's my summary. I've seen nothing in it to validate it's truth or reality.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Tinker683

Raith, if I might interject here.
Don't even give any sort of reguard to any of Jan's statements reguarding the BG. I asked him a while back to prove it, and he didn't. Why? At this point, I can only speculate because their isn't much to prove.
So, for future reference, just consider all references to the BG void.
Jan seems to be rather pathetic when it comes to acually providing proof for his claims. Much like most thiests.
I'm truly getting to that point. I enjoy discussion and debate but am starting to believe that Jan's misunderstanding what I say is deliberate. Jan also refuses to actually give any proofs for his assertions other than a vague reference to the BG or the "truth" as he knows it.

~Raithere

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raithere
I'm truly getting to that point. I enjoy discussion and debate but am starting to believe that Jan's misunderstanding what I say is deliberate. Jan also refuses to actually give any proofs for his assertions other than a vague reference to the BG or the "truth" as he knows it.


Thats fair enough.

Love.

Jan Ardena.