Is belief in a god just self-delusion? [Archive]

Tiassa

01-03-02, 12:24 PM

Cris

Not all notions of god are delusional, but all of them are extrapolations of the believers' psyches. That's why I advocate the stripping of the silly Christian contexts from the word "God". Only one definition ever came out of the Christian camp that suffices, and that being that God is greater than anything we can conceive.

If we simply redefine the word "God" to mean "all there is", we effectively strip it of its petty, comparative aspects. The only real benefit of holding onto this word is that if we somehow do stumble onto a tangible god-force, there's a little bit of psychological preparation for the idea.

We can do the same thing with the word universe. Multiverse? So what? In the end, there is a generalization of existing that makes the multiverse a universe. The only need for the idea of a multiverse comes while we cannot leap easily between them.

Likewise of gods; Jack Cady once asserted that the Puritans created a real and living devil; not necessarily a flesh and blood creature that leaves footprints and scents for hounds to track, but as a footnote Cady pointed to the power of collectives to manifest an intangible force; his example was to ask any jazz musician about the idea. Put five guys with their instruments together, and they can give you an ineffable force. There well may be a Yahweh and Christ and Satan, or a triune Mother, or a Zeus or Ahriman/Ormuzd or any number of petty gods fashioned of the desperations of humanity out there. We may well have generated some force and lent it authority. But just like the devices of magick, it's a mere faith point until it's proven. Even as such, though, these entities would still be part of the Universe, and when we consider the academic assertion that even the Greek and Roman pantheons were, essentially monotheistic by proxy of the fact that the deities responded to a higher ethic or law. Likewise with gods: if God is Universe is All There Is, the myriad menacing deities of human fancy fall away to dust and theology once again becomes a useful tool in considering the ineffable mysteries of being human.

So there's two cents on behalf of gods. It should be noted, though, that if the "official" theology of a religion runs more than two words long--God is--then I can pretty much guarantee you that the deity involved is a delusion.

I have to protest self-delusion on one particular point: Some of our Christian neighbors never stood a chance; from the cradle to the grave they are taught that they are worthless without god; they may be deluded, but not by the self. It's not like racism, either; I always say that I won't blame a racist by upbringing for his racism until he has rejected ample opportunity to understand the issues. In the case of religions, and specifically redemptive religions, the "others" (e.g Satan) may be lying to you when presenting "ample opportunity to understand", and there is always the fact that the stake transcends life itself. The delusion is difficult but not impossible to break; one must do it in kindness or risk creating an equally negative spectre about the new understanding. So the lifetime victims of the Jesus-cult aren't self-deluded; there are those who conspired to bestow the gifts of fear and self-loathing. I can't speak for the born-again crowd, though: they invite their own troubles when they throw their intellect out with the bathwater.

Now ...

Jan ArdenaThere is no distinction, because there is no delusion as to whether God is real. God is real. Delusion is brought about through ignorance as to the nature of the self and body, and sense gratification. You are the one who is deluded, that is why you, an atheist on a religous board not an atheist board.
Just for the record, what exactly is your purpose on this board?* No distinction: you have proven the point with your response. That does not necessarily mean you're self-deluded, but that you would rather eliminate the question than consider its myriad facets is a compelling argument toward your self-delusion.

* Atheist on a religious board: You'll note, sir, that this website is called Sciforums. Its former name, for the record, was Exosci. We might, then, wonder at the curious circumstance of a religion board being so popular at a science website. Why are you at a science site and not a religion site? In other words, save the useless arguments for a useless day. Do you believe in Judgement Day? Save the useless arguments for then.Lets correct that, 'you' will have no way of to know that your belief is not self delusional, because you are the one who relies on 'an independant objective mechanism.'
I am a musician, I don't know whether you play music or not, but if you did i bet your music would lack something. Probably technologically sound, but no feel man.Sounds like the classic argument that I think is Anselm: I can't see God or feel God or experience God so I know He must be there. At any rate, I was not born recognizing the concept of God, and neither was Cris and I'm willing to bet large sums of cash that neither were you. Somebody had to teach me the idea of God before it even mattered. And that they had to teach me to fear God instead of know God ... that's a compelling argument toward their self-delusion and their attempt to infect me with the same sickness. The objective state is that there is no God; there is no evidence suggesting that the assertion of a God's existence is true. Without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.Then don't beleive, nobody is forcing you to do anythingWell, I lived in Oregon, where Christians tried to disenfranchise gays based on biblical principle; Cris lives in California, home of the Schlafly ministry that protests textbooks in schools based on biblically-derived objections; a church in downtown Seattle asserts that Liberty is the freedom to worship a specific God in a specific manner--and yes, that means all other gods and methods of worship are out; why are laws allowing nudity laws and not the natural state (were you wearing a formal gown when you came out of your mother?); all across the US are groups which want laws written making religion a science and therefore limit the contribute of science by throwing out the need for verification of results and even the need for results at all ... You're right--nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything, but boy-oh, do the religious in the US want to make us live according to it.

You'd think that the freedom to live day to day would be a subject worth discussing ... tell us Jan, what is your purpose here? Seem a cheap question? Well?Yes!
I wondered when some accusation like this was gonna surface.
You are so predictable dude.And so are you, which is what's funny. Here: I predict that the next person to assert the existence of God will be unable to demonstrate that assertion as true.

Like I said above, without the assertion that God exists, the issue itself doesn't exist.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

John Como

01-03-02, 12:48 PM

Although not able to speak for Cris and his beliefs, may I suggest that the responses to his original thread show a definite lack of logic and reason on which, incidentally, atheism is based. Tony1 implies that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion. Nonsense. He also defends Christian beliefs as though they reflected mental health, when the very opposite is true. One of the psychiatric standards for mental health is an absence of guilt and fear, upon which almost all godforsaken religions are founded.
Jan Ardena is positive that God is real and obviously is annoyed that Cris who doesn't share this belief is on a religion board. Jan draws an absurd comparison between music and religion, as though one is required to bring similar feelings to both when, in fact, religion cannot survive without an emotional unscientific faith in superstitions and mythology. Regarding proof of god's existence, the onus is not on atheists such as Cris to disprove anything. It is up to Christianity and other sects to present valid evidence, something which has never been and never can be done. Personally, I have no problem with faith followers who find peace and solace in their delusions... as long as they keep outta my face!

Peace and goodwill.

Jan Ardena

01-03-02, 02:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
 Atheist on a religious board: You'll note, sir, that this website is called Sciforums. [/I]

Then why have a religious forum in a science website, if the only purpose is to prove the point of the religion does not exist.
It would be better to have an atheist forum. Then your points and arguments will have some kind of substance.
Do you know God doesn’t exist, therefore drumming it home in the hope we see sense?
Are you not sure whether God exists, and therefore wanting to be taught by us, conditionally?
If it is the former, then it would seem more fitting to have an atheist forum, whereby we could visit if we wanted to, and at the same time you wouldn’t have to contend with us brainwashed fundies all the time. (lol)
If it is the latter, then I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If you read and understand it, you will be in a far better position one way or the other.
At least then, hopefully we can develop our conversations, because up until now it has been non-productive, unless of course, you like it that way.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Tiassa

01-03-02, 02:36 PM

Then why have a religious forum in a science website, if the only purpose is to prove the point of the religion does not exist.
It would be better to have an atheist forum. Then your points and arguments will have some kind of substance.On the one hand, ask Porfiry. To the other, as I recall, it was that a website full of Ufo photos wasn't doing it for him. So he starts up this site, complete with considerations on science, philosophy, and speculation. An atheist forum is useless; atheists only bring out their sentiments in response to religion; they would not clamber toward a board to affirm themselves to each other the way Christians do. In that sense, then, what should our kind host do about those areas where science and religion mingle? As an example: I once asked Tony1 about faith healing. After asserting that he attended medical school, he proceeded to explain the physical device of faith healing as, "It just happens'. This is about what we can expect of a religion board. If it's a religion board at a science site ... well, I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing, as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.Do you know God doesn’t exist, therefore drumming it home in the hope we see sense?
Are you not sure whether God exists, and therefore wanting to be taught by us, conditionally?
If it is the former, then it would seem more fitting to have an atheist forum, whereby we could visit if we wanted to, and at the same time you wouldn’t have to contend with us brainwashed fundies all the time. I can go down a list and say which God's I'm pretty damn sure don't exist. The idea of God is open, though. I just don't understand why religions like Christianity are so intent on limiting God to a shoebox.

And it should be noted that whether it's at this board or out in the walking, waking world, we the infidels do, in fact, have to put up with brainwashed fundies on a regular basis. In fact, if we didn't have to deal with the brainwashed fundies, we wouldn't care what people believe. After all, I'm just sick and tired of having Christianity aiming to subvert Liberty. Christianity is a failed idea, and there's no reason to drag everyone else down with it. But as long as the Christians try to do so, it is something worth paying attention to. I suppose I could just retreat into a shell and assume that all Christians are as big of morons as their public representatives make them out to be, but it seems more rewarding to attempt to communicate on various levels with Christians and determine that they are, in fact, that big of morons.If it is the latter, then I suggest you read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. If you read and understand it, you will be in a far better position one way or the other.
At least then, hopefully we can develop our conversations, because up until now it has been non-productive, unless of course, you like it that way.Ah, the read this and get back to me. Well, if you can't convey what you want out of it clearly enough, and if you have to tell me to go find your answers for you, I wonder about the power of the text.

I'm aware of the BG, but I'm not about to thump it around like Falwell with a Bible. In the larger context of productivity, Jan, I would recommend that if you're not satisfied with progress that you stick to the topics you address and stop inserting irrelevant issues unless you can make them relevant. Such as teh "atheist board" digression. Seems to me you're just trying to draw attention away from the subject by turning to such inquiries in lieu of actually discussing the topic.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Xelios

01-03-02, 06:52 PM

Is belief in a god just self-delusion?
Yes.
:)

Avatar

01-03-02, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Cris

I’ve been playing with adopting a stronger position these past few months, especially after reading some of the tony1 posts and posts from other Christians.

Christianity is not the only religion Cris.
I'm not too religious and by my previous posts you could tell that definetely I'm not christian:)
But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible. While I do not think we have sth like God as Christians think him to be, I do not deny the existannce of spiritual beings. They could yust as well be life forms from another dimmension - do not have a physical body. I can not deny it, only because I have not seen it. "discovering new things recquires an element of faith"[discovery channel]. Ghosts-maybe marks our mind has left in different dimmension, geological abnormalities, spirits of dead people, our illusion. One of this could be true. If I deny them in first place and do not examine the problem, I won't discover anything. I take them all as possible and then acquiring to my observations, experiments etc, exclude one possibility by one. Only this method can lead to truth.

Self delusion which may lead to knowing truth.
Einstein immagined his theory and only then proved it by formulas.

But I beleive that Christians have immagined for enough of time 2000 years. And come to the conclusion tht christianity is a religion particular meaningful for tht culture 2000 years ago. It has in itself aspects important for tht long dead culture. Today it looks like a fairy tale. A god who deals with every dead human soul after death, pleeeeeez. a god tht denyed knowledge. a god tht needs sacrifaces. christianity is a religion for past , some people are only stuck in it till this day. NEW IDEA lets name the 5th dimmension. psyhological time dimmension:)

That is why I choosed paganism. It is preconception free, there is no hell or heaven, yust life. It is politic free, couraging everyone to new discoveries in science, very open minded, not forcing anyone to beleive like we want. Compete freedom of chioce and works. If you do smth "bad" you spoil your life a bit and nth more. You kill a person, you go to prision and/or suffer from psyhological problems, stress. Noone will sue you after you die.
We honour life in all of its forms. We praise the earth and try to protect it. Some of us do it for Godess, some yust wouldn't like to live in a pile of trash.
Sorry for this little speech, but I yust wanted to show Cris tht all beleifs are not preconceptional, carry us back to dark ages, are out of date and so on. We are the most open minded people and do no beleive in such arhaic things like creation of world in 7 days.

Cris

01-03-02, 08:29 PM

Avatar,

I don’t think we have exchanged ideas before, hi.

I have to admit I do tend to think of the major religions, Christianity, Islam, etc when I speak of religions, I guess we could call them the “revealed” religions. But all religions share a common issue, an unsupported belief to some extent. Paganism is less of a belief system than it is an alternative view of viewing reality, and Deism (typical of the American founding fathers), is very close to the rationality of atheism. These beliefs are rarely thrust in my face and neither tries to force their ideas and potential bigotry on others. So if we consider everything within degrees then those who accept and believe the extremes like Christianity and Islam attract the most attention and criticism, and those like yourself who harm none should be free to exist and live as desired.

But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible. While I do not think we have sth like God as Christians think him to be, I do not deny the existannce of spiritual beings. But I have found there comes a point when the claims are simply not credible. A lack of evidence for something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist but the proposed something must have the potential for belief to begin with. Once you cut away all the mythology, hopes, superstitions, dogmas, misinformation, politics, dishonesty, and greed, from say Christianity, then all you have left is an unsupported belief in an imaginary super-being, and that same imagination can also create fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, flying carpets, etc. At what point does one decide that a claim is worth investigating or it is really just a fantasy and really doesn’t exist at all.

So having thought carefully about the issues for some 30+ years I feel I have little choice than to conclude that gods are just fantasies that exist only in the imaginations of people. And so far no one has been able to show me that I am not correct. Spirits and souls are even more fanciful.

Dismissing something because it holds no credibility does not limit the imagination to pursue other possibilities. My issue with such things and gods and spirits is that many people choose to believe and really cannot justify their beliefs. A healthy skepticism should always accompany such things until some evidence can be found.

"discovering new things recquires an element of faith"[discovery channel]. And here I would disagree. I just think it needs curiosity and common sense.

Self delusion which may lead to knowing truth.Only by accident. Most of the time, and all of the time for most, the delusion is a world of unreality.

Einstein immagined his theory and only then proved it by formulas. And imagination is one of the greatest abilities of mankind. The important thing is to not believe what you imagine is real until you can show it to be real. There is a very important distinction between a scientific hypothesis/theory and a faith based belief.

But yes I agree, Christianity has had its day. After 2000 years of terror, superstition and ignorance, they have still not shown they have found any truths. And yet they ask us to believe them because…..well they really cannot say can they.

Sorry for this little speech, but I yust wanted to show Cris tht all beleifs are not preconceptional, carry us back to dark ages, are out of date and so on. We are the most open minded people and do no beleive in such arhaic things like creation of world in 7 days. Avatar, no problem.

Cris

Avatar

01-03-02, 09:07 PM

I woke up yust to see if anyone has replied. see, I had an element of faith;) about tht discovering new things smtimes needs an element of faith. I do agree with you tht beleiving in let's say Shiva or Jahve won't help me to upgrade the theory of evolution. But beleiving in myself and my strenght ay help, don't you think. Beleiving doesn't allways mean RELIGIOUS beleiving.

"A lack of evidence for something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist but the proposed something must have the potential for belief to begin with"

I fully agree with you on this. God ceated Adam and Eve to be first humans. ridiculous. I tend more towards the possibility tht the first "developed" humans were created as alien genetic experiment. This theory has more facts to prove its right thn Christianity. But why do I think tht many people wouldn't like it?;)

"So having thought carefully about the issues for some 30+ years I feel I have little choice than to conclude that gods are just fantasies that exist only in the imaginations of people"

I respect your experience. I also do not beleive in gods, but I think tht we can evolve to be them and maybe some other civilizations outside our solar system allready have. I do beleive in supreme life force, like an other kind of energy not proven, but I can understand tht you may not like it. But hey, I do not send you preaching e-mails and ask you to donate.[well maybe a few hundred bucks for a new PC:)]

"A healthy skepticism should always accompany such things until some evidence can be found"

Hey, you are talking to a former atheist here! and I have not lost my share of skepticism and hope tht never will.

"And imagination is one of the greatest abilities of mankind"

I'll nail a little cat to the tree and dance around it for these words:D:D:D:D:D. Sorry teasing you, what I wanted to say tht I bow before these words. All those space adventures and ancient battles I have fought in. It's like a built in virtual reality device. I can't imagine my life without it.

No problem at all,
I enjoy discussions with you.
Bye, I'm going back to bed now.

Taken

01-03-02, 09:26 PM

Cris I do not believe that delusion is what God is about. You are correct in the regard that most churches teach you to "Believe" God in to existance...You must have "enough" faith, you must "blindly" accept with out question...
Well if God is real then all that is a bunch of rubbish. I do not have to believe anything that truely does exist in to existance. I clearly see where you get your assertion from, because I share it. It is ludicracy that one can only be aware of God if you can wish Him into existance by your own mental powers...that is in fact delusion at it's perfection.
When I say I can not make Him manifest to you, what I am saying is that you can not as a thinking rational human take my word for it...you will NOT believe it untill you see or experience it for yourself. I can give you hope or cause to give it the benefit of the doubt by my assurance that I have seen and believe...and hope that you will see in me enough credibility, conviction, or enlightenment to further investigate it for yourself.
I do not suggest you convince yourself of God or believe just because you are told He is real...I simply beckon for you to continue investigating the possibility and ask Him to make Himself manifest to you personaly so you will have seen for yourself and CAN believe.
He will make Himself known to you upon request...you do not have to believe Him into existance.
You did not have to believe you had pshychic abilitys or take a course in it to experience what you did with your daughter...neither do you have to believe in God or take a brainwashing seminar at a local church to experience Him. If He is in fact real then why would you need to.
If He is in fact real and you knew that beyond a shadow of a doubt, would it make a change in your life? Would you do things differently? Mabey you are not even sure...but if He is you would want to know for sure and you have a right to...so ask Him, what have you got to lose? Worst case senario He isn't, are you worse off for asking? What if He is and doesn't answer your demands? Still, you are no further from Him than you already were. But what if He is, and He does answer your demands for evidence...what if He does Cris? I don't see how you could lose in any event.

Cris

01-03-02, 09:30 PM

Avatar,

But beleiving in myself and my strenght ay help, don't you think. Beleiving doesn't allways mean RELIGIOUS beleiving. Yes exactly, but this depends on which variation of the word ‘belief’ you mean. A rational belief is one based on evidence, and an irrational belief is where evidence is lacking. Religious faith/belief comes into the later category.

Now when you say you believe in yourself it is because you have some evidence of your capabilities. That is a rational belief. Now if you choose to jump off a high cliff because you believe you can survive such a fall, then you would be lacking evidence that you could survive. Such a belief would be irrational.

I also do not beleive in gods, but I think tht we can evolve to be them and maybe some other civilizations outside our solar system allready have. I do beleive in supreme life force, like an other kind of energy not proven, but I can understand tht you may not like it. LOL, you’d be surprised. I have proposed several times on these boards how intelligent life might eventually evolve into godlike beings, see “the reason for everything” currently in the general philosophy forum, which is a recent thought. And I think I have discussed with Taken recently issues about a universal energy based on the Grand Unified Theory.

Hope you sleep well. Take care.
Cris

Cris

01-03-02, 09:37 PM

Taken,

Thanks for responding. I hoped you would. I'll get back to you on this very shortly. It is pleasant to receive a non-confrontational response.

Cris

tony1

01-04-02, 02:39 AM

*Originally posted by Cris
I’ve been playing with adopting a stronger position these past few months, especially after reading some of the tony1 posts and posts from other Christians. *

Great.
No more fence-sitting.
You take your stand in the universe against God.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by John Como
I'm currently writing a column on Atheism which I hope the local paper will include in its new "Faith page".*

Typical atheist humor.
Atheists are truely funny and in the most ironic ways.

Faith? Faith in what?
Faith in...er...well....nothing.
Atheism definitely belongs on the Faith Page, as a "what not to do" piece.
Perfect.

*Originally posted by tiassa
It should be noted, though, that if the "official" theology of a religion runs more than two words long--God is--then I can pretty much guarantee you that the deity involved is a delusion.*

Now you're getting somewhere.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:14, KJV).

*I can't speak for the born-again crowd*

You wouldn't be able to see them, anyway.

Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born again.
The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell whence it comes, and whither it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
(John 3:7,8, KJV).

*Originally posted by John Como
Tony1 implies that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion. Nonsense.*

That settles it for sure.
I can't understand where you've been.
We could have closed down the Religion Forum if you'd only showed up sooner.

Besides, I'm not implying that belief in the scientific method may be self-delusion, I'm saying it is.
It is trivially obvious that the scientific method is pure hogwash simply because its proponents haven't even applied the scientific method to itself.
If they had, they would immediately have detected the absence of comparative results obtained by other methods to verify the validity of the scientific method.

*Originally posted by tiassa
I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing, as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.*

Most people would rather be healed than figure out what the process is.
You go ahead and explore, I'll go ahead and be healed.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yes. *

Is belief in Xelios just self-delusion? Yes.

If Descartes says, "I think, therefore I am," then the corollary is that Xelios does not exist.
So far, you've been recycling your teachers' spit spray, without an original thought in there.

*Originally posted by Avatar
But I NEVER say that smth is impossible only because I don't beleive it to be possible.*

Can you peel off the lining from your large intestine and wrap it around your head?

*We are the most open minded people*

Yes, you are, as the wind just whistles thru your ears.

*Originally posted by Cris
I guess we could call them the “revealed” religions.*

That's probably the best way to refer to it.
Presumably, there would be some distinction between those to whom it is revealed and those to whom it is not, even within the ranks of a particular religion.

*Originally posted by Avatar
God ceated Adam and Eve to be first humans. ridiculous. I tend more towards the possibility tht the first "developed" humans were created as alien genetic experiment.*

And I thought only atheists were comedians.
So, just out of curiosity, not to poke too much fun at such trash, but where did the aliens come from?

*All those space adventures and ancient battles I have fought in. It's like a built in virtual reality device.*

You really like that Gameboy, don't you?

*Originally posted by Cris
It is pleasant to receive a non-confrontational response.*

Have I been taking the wrong approach?

Teg

01-04-02, 02:52 AM

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that science is valid you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion.

Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

Have you ever produced a device to measure the presence of god? I shall grant your position validity when you do.

Jan Ardena

01-04-02, 08:08 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
On the one hand, ask Porfiry. To the other, as I recall, it was that a website full of Ufo photos wasn't doing it for him. So he starts up this site, complete with considerations on science, philosophy, and speculation. An atheist forum is useless; atheists only bring out their sentiments in response to religion; they would not clamber toward a board to affirm themselves to each other the way Christians do.

Are you kidding me. ‘God does not exist,’ is all atheists have to offer.
Don’t you get bored of that?
I know I did.
As for clambering, well, just look at the majority of posts and you will undoubtedly find, yes you’ve got it….God does not exist.
You people are obsessed with God.
You need religious people to give your life meaning.

After asserting that he attended medical school, he proceeded to explain the physical device of faith healing as, "It just happens'.

Whats wrong with that answer?
If it just happened, and he had no idea of how it happened, then his experience has to be ‘it just happened’
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.

This is about what we can expect of a religion board.

That just shows how ignorant you are.
Because it falls outside of your experience and understanding, it therefore doesn’t exist.
‘I believe’ that to you God does not exist, but fortunately I don’t share your conclusion.

If it's a religion board at a science site ... well, I, personally would hope that someone could offer the physical device of healing…

Study vedic literature, it is all there.

….as the example goes, so that we can then explore how one person by faith or whatnot, can create this effect in another. Unfortunately, most of our religious posters aren't up for that.I can go down a list and say which God's I'm pretty damn sure don't exist. The idea of God is open, though. I just don't understand why religions like Christianity are so intent on limiting God to a shoebox.

Christianity is based on faith alone. Who did Jesus inspire, it wasn’t the recognised scientists or philosophers of the day, it was to simple people, peasants, the inflicted the poor and so on. He preached in a different age and even though the essence of his preaching is perfect with regard to developing God consciousness, the method cannot be effectively used in this day and age.
So christians are not generally interested in the philosophical aspect of God, that is probably why you like picking on them, because philosophically they are not well endowed (so to speak)

And it should be noted that whether it's at this board or out in the walking, waking world, we the infidels do, in fact, have to put up with brainwashed fundies on a regular basis.

My heart bleeds.

In fact, if we didn't have to deal with the brainwashed fundies, we wouldn't care what people believe. After all, I'm just sick and tired of having Christianity aiming to subvert Liberty.

I know. You turn on the TV anytime of the day or night, and there they are,

You go in a department store, and all they have is christian and muslim gear,
And what’s wrong with hollywood these days eh! They just seem to be knocking out religious this religious that’

The music charts, the porno films etc……..

Them bloody religionists.

Christianity is a failed idea, and there's no reason to drag everyone else down with it.

Do you follow the teachings of Jesus?
No?
Then how would you know it is a failed idea?

….but it seems more rewarding to attempt to communicate on various levels with Christians and determine that they are, in fact, that big of morons.

Outside of ‘God does not exist’ what levels are you referring to.

I'm aware of the BG, but I'm not about to thump it around like Falwell with a Bible.

I don’t blame you.
Neither am I.

In the larger context of productivity, Jan, I would recommend that if you're not satisfied with progress that you stick to the topics you address and stop inserting irrelevant issues unless you can make them relevant. Such as teh "atheist board" digression. Seems to me you're just trying to draw attention away from the subject by turning to such inquiries in lieu of actually discussing the topic.

That’s just the problem.
There is no topic. Well if you call ‘God does not exist’ a topic……

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

01-04-02, 08:11 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

You have?

Then don't just sit there typing nonsense, type this evidense, that we can all see.

Love

Jan Ardena.

John Como

01-04-02, 08:59 AM

It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour. I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry, an opinion for which (similar to a sunbaked philosopher with my initials) I have been crucified. Many times.

John C.

Tiassa

01-04-02, 09:48 AM

Are you kidding me. ‘God does not exist,’ is all atheists have to offer.
Don’t you get bored of that?
I know I did. If I warn you to be careful on the dock, that you might fall in and drown, wouldn't you find it strange if you look around and there's no water to fall into? If I tell you to be careful to not burn yourself, and you look around and there's no critical heat source, won't you wonder what I'm talking about?

The idea of God is artificial; it cannot be quantified in any rational sense. Without the assertion that God exists, there is no issue. The natural state is to be without assumptions of God. As for clambering, well, just look at the majority of posts and you will undoubtedly find, yes you’ve got it….God does not exist.
You people are obsessed with God.
You need religious people to give your life meaning. And cops need rapists, thieves, and stupid people to give their lives meaning. You see, if I don't "obsess" myself with disproving vegetarianism, it's because it doesn't bear much of a stake in my life. If I don't "obsess" myself with attending EBE/Ufo conferences, it's because it doesn't bear much of a stake in my life. God and religion, however, do bear a stake in my life. Every time I stop paying attention my life is severely affected by religion and the people's notions of God. At the present moment, for instance:

* My nation is presently involved in a military conflict that starts with someone's interpretation of God. There are thousands dead in NYC because of someone's religion and idea of God.
* In one corner of my nation, people are demonstrating for the end of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and doing so because of their ideas of God. Since most of my friends aspire to various artistic pursuits, this is a very relevant thing. Given that what we post here is covered by that Amendment, I'd think it would mean something to you, too.
* In Oregon, where my mother lives, there is a religious cadre that wishes to insert its God into the state constitution.

Would you like me to go on? Besides, if you've paid attention, I happen to stand with the theists; it's just that none of y'all have understood the point of why we invented gods in the first place so y'all aren't noticing how ridiculous you sound and how ridiculous you make the idea of God. In my corner of the living experience, believing in gods is the preferred method of weakening the species.Whats wrong with that answer?
If it just happened, and he had no idea of how it happened, then his experience has to be ‘it just happened’
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.I love how every religion tells me, "If you want to know the science of ... read our holy book." :rolleyes:

In the meantime, let's look at it as God doing the healing: does God rewrite reality? Does God accelerate the healing process? What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?

What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts. Study vedic literature, it is all there.If you'd be so kind as to offer us a sample?My heart bleeds.Yes, we know how much you care. :rolleyes: I know. You turn on the TV anytime of the day or night, and there they are,

You go in a department store, and all they have is christian and muslim gear,
And what’s wrong with hollywood these days eh! They just seem to be knocking out religious this religious that’

The music charts, the porno films etc……..

Them bloody religionists.Ah ... yes. And if we look past your sarcastic diversion, we might realize that the God people seem to have a severe problem with all of that. As it goes in this country: My rights are violated by you having any. Seriously, since we hear the argument all the time. You mentioned clothes, movies, music ... sure: My rights as a religious person are violated until the things that offend my religion cannot exist.

You know, like we hear from the brainwashed fundies? My First Amendment rights are violated until you're made to shut up. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that from religious people. Their rights are violated if other people speak? It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but since you mentioned diversity, well? Them bloody religionists, indeed. They need to stop hating and corrupting the very liberty that allows them to think the way they do. Without the laws and constitutional principles them bloody religionists attempt to subvert, well? It sounds like Maryland all over again.Do you follow the teachings of Jesus?
No?
Then how would you know it is a failed idea?You're right. You're so right. After all, the visible and tangible result, the experiential result, of Christianity was intended to be this harmful to humanity. After centuries of warfare, Christianity has settled comfortably into the pattern of opposing the liberty that helped pacify the West to the degree it has been. Don't take us back to the fundamentalist state. Take Islam, and its visible problems with fundamentalism. Do you realize that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity? Look at what Christianity did 600 years ago. Outside of ‘God does not exist’ what levels are you referring to. What levels do you thing I'm referring to? Communicative levels. And yes, I do want an anser to that: What levels did you think I was referring to? Specifically, by voice or image, or written word in paper or electronica; in demonstration and music, I fail to understand why Christians refuse to communicate. On the one hand, I could stay inside my shell and assume Christians to be morons; it is, indeed, more satisfying to attempt to communicate with such strange creatures and let them prove whether or not they are morons. In fact, I generally try to be more positive in my generalizations. But, like economic systems centered around greed, I don't know what more than a 100% consistent data set I need to start predicting what happens with such religions. The number of times I actually hand a Christian the benefit of my trust is kind of ludicrous; such trust of a Christian has zero per cent statistical support in my data set. I am, in fact, betting on a zero per cent history if I wait for a Christian to prove themselves moronic. Now, understand this as well, please: everyone is moronic in their own way. Everyone is moronic in a human way. But what is offensive about this consistently moronic Christianity I keep running into is that it actually calculates to lower my standard of living by destroying the freedoms that allow that standard of living. It is a dangerous stupidity, this Christianity. You'll notice that Vedic texts, in practice, inspire some odd living as well, but these oddities are unique in their own right. They haven't proven themselves as dangerous yet. But we have to give every person the benefit of the doubt; other religions--even Abramic religions--don't prove themselves moronic with such consistency. To my experience, as relates levels, on any level I've ever attempted to communicate with Christians, the only one that works is if I stop trying to communicate. I should just apply their own standard to them and assume the worst in them. That would be fair, eh? That’s just the problem.
There is no topic. Well if you call ‘God does not exist’ a topic…… Then go devote your attentions to a topic more worthy of you.

--Tiassa :cool:

Jan Ardena

01-04-02, 11:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Como
It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour. I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry, an opinion for which (similar to a sunbaked philosopher with my initials) I have been crucified. Many times.

How’s this.

Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law. At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity. Your case is non-existant. Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion. Any other theory can be granted no weight.

You have?

Please could you type this evidense, that we can all see.

Love

Jan Ardena

Jan Ardena

01-04-02, 01:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
The idea of God is artificial;

To you, but not me.

Without the assertion that God exists, there is no issue.

If so many people believe that He exists, then you should try and find out why. If you don’t, then you have no case, you have no idea what you are repressing.

The natural state is to be without assumptions of God.

None-sense. It is only in this age of ‘kali yuga,’ that the assumptions of Godlessness are aparant. And that is for the reason of anihilation of material nature.

And cops need rapists, thieves, and stupid people to give their lives meaning.

That is a foolish statement. I think you’re beginning to crack up.

God and religion, however, do bear a stake in my life.

LOL, Don’t be shy son, just step up to the alter and beg Gods mercy.

My nation is presently involved in a military conflict that starts with someone's interpretation of God.

How do you make that out?
I thought ‘bin Laden’ hated America for supporting Israel and the fact that he wants her out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop the killing in Iraq. Well if his video evidence is anything to go by anyway.

There are thousands dead in NYC because of someone's religion and idea of God.

Here goes!
Anybody who is religious are terrorists.
Here comes the mark of the beast show.

In one corner of my nation, people are demonstrating for the end of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and doing so because of their ideas of God. Since most of my friends aspire to various artistic pursuits, this is a very relevant thing. Given that what we post here is covered by that Amendment, I'd think it would mean something to you, too.

As I do not reside in the US, I am not fully aware of the amendments, if you post the first amendmant, I will look at it and then foreward a reply.

Besides, if you've paid attention, I happen to stand with the theists;

Yeah right!!!

y'all aren't noticing how ridiculous you sound and how ridiculous you make the idea of God.

Out of an explosion, comes life?
Your telling me that doesn’t sound ridiculous.

In my corner of the living experience, believing in gods is the preferred method of weakening the species.I love how every religion tells me, "If you want to know the science of ... read our holy book." :rolleyes:

Well, how have you learned anything in this life. Have you never basically understood something from reading a book. That is what books are for, my friend.

The reason why I refer you to BG is because you and your atheist chums, have no concept or idea of God, so at least learn something of what you wish to destroy.

In the meantime, let's look at it as God doing the healing: does God rewrite reality? Does God accelerate the healing process? What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?

Of course God heals. But miracles, like healing, weightlessness, disapearing and reapearing somewhere else, and other types, are not nescasserily divine, they can be manipulations of nature as well. One who has undergone certain practices can become qualified and can manipulate nature.

What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts.

Not everybody is as brainy as you my dear tiassa.

If you'd be so kind as to offer us a sample?

Read BG.

My rights are violated by you having any.

I take it your not being serious, yeah?
Phew!
I’m glad to see you would not sink so low.

My rights as a religious person are violated until the things that offend my religion cannot exist.

Don’t get ya.

They need to stop hating and corrupting the very liberty that allows them to think the way they do.

This is just hate talk right?
I’m not really into hate and corruption and to tell you the truth I don’t know any bona-fide religions that are. The people who do these things, are a religion unto themselves, they do not follow scriptures or take any notice of spiritual masters, actually they are atheistic. If you are told that you shouldn’t sleep with your brothers wife, and you do, then you are not acting in accordance with the law, you become an outlaw, and are therefore not religious. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you perform it in the name of God, you are irreligous, atheistic and demoniac.

After centuries of warfare, Christianity has settled comfortably into the pattern of opposing the liberty that helped pacify the West to the degree it has been.

If you want to know what real Christianity is, then start of by surrendering to Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are talking non-sense.

On the one hand, I could stay inside my shell and assume Christians to be morons; it is, indeed, more satisfying to attempt to communicate with such strange creatures and let them prove whether or not they are morons.

You, my dear sir, are most kind.

The number of times I actually hand a Christian the benefit of my trust is kind of ludicrous; such trust of a Christian has zero per cent statistical support in my data set.

I have no real interest of people who do nastiness in the name of God, that is another topic, I am interested in God. Do not recognise people by what they call themselves, but how they act.

But what is offensive about this consistently moronic Christianity I keep running into is that it actually calculates to lower my standard of living by destroying the freedoms that allow that standard of living.

If it is moronic then it is not God conscious. You need to understand more about God. I’m genuinely sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is alarmingly clear that you have no understanding whatsoever.
I can call myself anything I like, but I am only what I am (actions), nothing more. There is a lot of nastiness in this world. Lets take peodofiles, they get into all kinds of positions where children are involved, on the surface they seem OK, some of them are highly qualified people, so we get taken in. This gives them the opportunity to take advantage of the innocent. It is the same in any walk of life, people will use whatever they can to take advantage, religion is no different. That is why, in this day and age, you have to go directly to the source of religion, God, and that is why He recited the BG, because of this time period. Religion isn’t about christian, moslem or jew anymore, they are being used for something else. That is not to say, that a person who accepts these religions in truth are wasteing their time, it means that unless they can live the life as prescribed in the scripture, properly, they are in a dangerous position.

It is a dangerous stupidity, this Christianity.

The same can be said of any system, if not utilised correctly.

You'll notice that Vedic texts, in practice, inspire some odd living as well, but these oddities are unique in their own right. They haven't proven themselves as dangerous yet.

There is no difference. ‘Vedas’ means knowledge, all knowledge is born out of Vedas.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Tiassa

01-04-02, 06:08 PM

To you, but not me. Then perhaps you could do us a favor and clear up a difficult issue: If you would, please, describe to us the knowledge you had of God at the moment of your birth. Really: you are not born knowing inherently of God; you are not born knowing the Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad-Gita. I'm not sure the artifice of the god-concept is a matter of opinion in its present facet. I flatly declare that someone had to teach you about God. Religious faith is an acquired behavior; knowledge of the object of faith is an acquired knowledge.It is only in this age of ‘kali yuga,’ that the assumptions of Godlessness are aparantAssumption of godlessness? What assumption of godlessness? The "assumption" of godlessness is not necessarily an assumption. It is a lack of evidence suggesting there is an issue. One cannot declare nonexistant something which they have never heard of. That is, one might say something about an idea, "I've never heard that before," but we can note that what he has not heard is what has been related to him. That is, he has heard it, but not prior to the immediate conversation. For instance, if I tell you about a new idea of government called Hag'fr'nalt, you might say in response that you've never heard of it before. But I'm pretty sure that last Tuesday, you did not get up and randomly declare your opinion on Hag'fr'nalt. That is, having never been asserted to you, you have no ideas related to Hag'fr'nalt.

Tell me, Jan, how can one have any opinion of data they do not have? How can one have any perspective on a concept they are unaware of?

I am quite sure that I never had to accept or reject the idea of God until it was asserted to me that God existed. Consider a little piece of history that's real; as a side note, we can laugh at the assertion that religion is persecuted by the state. The relevant point, I hope, will be obvious.

* Did you know that as a condition of my parents being allowed to raise me there exists a piece of paper bearing government endorsement that required me to have a religious education? (Specifically, a Christian education.) On the one hand, let me point out to my biological progenitor, wherever she may be, that since you were fifteen and a hooker when you gave birth, it would seem that Christianity did you a whole lot of good! I always wonder about that: on the one hand the state accepted the contractual demand and endorsed the indoctrination of a child into a religion; to the other, why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?

* Now, that education started immediately. I had at least twenty books and records before my fifth birthday, from my grandmother, which aimed to help children build a relationship with the father, son, and holy spirit. Think about that--by the time I was thirteen and furiously lashing back at foul-tongued, table-smashing, bible-throwing prechers, I had a lifetime's data set of Christians reminding me, for my own good, that I am a pathetic piece of shite. (By the time I got to Catholic school ... let's just say that while the Jesuits can teach well, there was nothing of the faith in that school that seemed foreign to me. Such selfishness and hostility were part and parcel of biblical faith.)

* Now ... I know damn well that my introduction to the god-concept came from outside. I have vague memories of being 3 and someone explaining to me how big God was. Bottom line is that I can guarantee the willful, external introduction of God. For you--perhaps you were born reciting Isaiah and Second Timothy; perhaps you were born knowing God, but I doubt it. As a matter of fact, few doubts of mine are so convincing as this.

So, what I need before I stop laughing at your self-centered response is an explanation of how you came to know of God. Of course, it would have been helpful if you included that with your rejection of the artifice of God, but I well understand how something so important as the reasons you believe what you believe might fail to occur to you.That is a foolish statement. I think you’re beginning to crack up. Without lawbreakers, what do cops have to do? Ah, harass and assault innocent people. There are some who think they do this already; they do, but is it really their purpose in life? So have you any evidence of my foolish crack-up? Or is it so just because you say?Here goes!
Anybody who is religious are terrorists.
Here comes the mark of the beast show. Did you mention that in the Inevitable Evil of Religious Belief topic? But it seems you get the point: religion is exceptionally relevant even to the atheists. If evangelical, redemptive religions hadn't f--ked up the lot for the rest of theism, religion might actually be useful on a larger scale than inflating egos.How do you make that out?
I thought ‘bin Laden’ hated America for supporting Israel and the fact that he wants her out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop the killing in Iraq. Well if his video evidence is anything to go by anyway.Whoops, I missed this one as I went through. I can't imagine why I missed it, though :rolleyes:

It's certainly, uh ... oh, whatever.As I do not reside in the US, I am not fully aware of the amendments, if you post the first amendmant, I will look at it and then foreward a reply.Okay, the first "Bill of Rights" link at Google: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html

The First Amendment to the Constituton of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In and of itself, this statement is part of the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States. No "law" can contradict the Constitution. No public agency can contradict the Constitution in practice. Such as the OCA in Oregon, who attempted to put legislation before the people to force the state of Oregon to adopt a certain view of homosexuality that was in accord with fundamentalist-Christian views. One of the results of this was that any book which A) mentioned homosexuality, and B) did not outright condemn it as "evil" or "perverse" or "dangerous" would be removed from the public libraries. While the Oregon law did not pass the ballot, a similar law did in Colorado. The courts took it to pieces: it was largely at odds with the Constitution.

Imagine not being allowed to publish a book because someone says God doesn't like it. Maybe that happens where you are, but our government is obliged to protect all people within its borders against such encroachment. The problem is, though, that the Amendment covers a few vital things, and the Christian protesters generally aren't smart enough to figure out how they relate. Thus, when a Christian petitions for the removal of a book from libraries, or the prohibition of its sale, what they are saying is that their right to free religion is not granted until others forfeit their right to free speech. It really is quite stupid on their part.Yeah right!!!So it's obvious you weren't paying attention. What purpose do you have here, then, Jan? Are you just out for the thrill of being hostile? Are you out to make sure nobody ever discusses God? What's the point if you're not paying attention? Ask Cris or our other long-standing atheist posters about that very issue. The Tiassa an atheist?Well, how have you learned anything in this life. Have you never basically understood something from reading a book. That is what books are for, my friend.

The reason why I refer you to BG is because you and your atheist chums, have no concept or idea of God, so at least learn something of what you wish to destroy. A) Yes, but the way you're presenting it equals an admission that you are either too lazy to present your case or not prepared.

B) Ask Cris about his association to faith. When you go to make an unfounded statement, Jan, you'd better be right. You're an excellent example of how embarrasing it appears when you're wrong.

C) In other words, get a clue and then actually stand up for what you claim to believe. Don't admit you're lazy and expect everyone else to just agree with what you're unwilling to say.Out of an explosion, comes life?
Your telling me that doesn’t sound ridiculous. Well, you don't seem to be pushing biblical creationism ... I've noticed your inclusion of the Vedic take on creation. I figure I can either accept blindly any number of books which tell me what the authors think God says happened, or I can simply watch the guys working to find a demonstrable explanation and see where that leads. I'm quite confident in the Bang; I just wonder why everyone focuses on the political aspect of it. We do, in fact, need to answer the "before the bang" questions until we get down to that moment of cause. On the other hand, it's better than being comfortable in a fantasy that is designed so that it can never be demonstrated. What sounds ridiculous to me is choosing ignorance because a holy book makes you think you should.Of course God heals. But miracles, like healing, weightlessness, disapearing and reapearing somewhere else, and other types, are not nescasserily divine, they can be manipulations of nature as well. One who has undergone certain practices can become qualified and can manipulate nature. Quit dodging. Here, we'll try it again: What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing? I take it your not being serious, yeah?
Phew!
I’m glad to see you would not sink so low. I'll not snap back here, but point you back to the First Amendment. I think the point might make a little more sense to you then.Don’t get ya. Again, I point back to the First Amendment. Suffice it to say that both of these phrases you've wondered about refer to the attitudes of American Christians who believe they are not free to be Christians until people can't be anything else. This wild-sounding assertion is evident through observation. Have you ever heard a Christian lament that Christianity is persecuted in the schools? This comes from several points: the state cannot force children to pray Christian prayers; the state cannot provide favor to one religion over another; the state will not (and cannot) make a religiously-derived assertion that cannot be tested into a science; the state cannot ban a book for the mere crime of contradicting Christian assertions. You know, they can't do those things on behalf of Wiccans, either, but you don't hear the witches complaining. Think about it: write a book about how the Bhagavad-Gita has affected you. Now imagine that you are not allowed to publish it because a Christian is angry because it seems to contradict his own faith. What? You're not allowed to publish or sell your book? Why? Because to the Christian, people are only equal when Christians are superior. Listen to any Christian protesting art; what it will come down to, in the end, when you strip away the accreted subjectivities of human egos, is that allowing a non-Christian to have equal rights in society is an intentional and calculated violation of equality. Seriously: Christians often in these censoring moments offer the justification that they are entitled by their rights to live without dissent, contradiction, or opposition. Give our First Amendment some thought and try running a few illustrations of how you think it works through your head; I suspect you'll figure it out.Not everybody is as brainy as you my dear tiassa.In other words, nobody wants to even try to explain the processes of divine healing. Oh, well, it was worth asking.Read BG.Are you lazy or is it just that those parts don't exist?This is just hate talk right?
I’m not really into hate and corruption and to tell you the truth I don’t know any bona-fide religions that are. The people who do these things, are a religion unto themselves, they do not follow scriptures or take any notice of spiritual masters, actually they are atheistic. If you are told that you shouldn’t sleep with your brothers wife, and you do, then you are not acting in accordance with the law, you become an outlaw, and are therefore not religious. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you perform it in the name of God, you are irreligous, atheistic and demoniac.Like I noted, the First Amendment. And, you'll note, unlike you I provided the text and even some commentary on the idea.

As to the religion unto itself: Disqualifying people from a religion is well and fine, but these disqualifications are apparently the best the religion can do? Sounds like it needs to fade away with quiet dignity.If you want to know what real Christianity is, then start of by surrendering to Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are talking non-sense.Ah, yes ... the idiocy of the Christian appeal. Think of it this way? How do I know which version of God is right? By your recommendation, I have to be every religion in the world. Good luck to the Christians on that one; how long will Tony1 spend genuinely, faithfully worshipping Allah? How about the Triune Goddess? Shiva? How long will you spend genuinely worshipping the Hopi Spider Woman?

Jan ... why did Christ want the people to preach if that preaching speaks nothing of real faith? Why do they still bother?You, my dear sir, are most kindHardly; it's the same I offer all people. Whether you're bright or not, kind or not, and so forth, I can only judge by your expressions, actions, and manifestations. I suppose I could use my imagination: Hey, Jan, great work on the microbiology; you really deserved that Nobel Prize!I have no real interest of people who do nastiness in the name of God, that is another topic, I am interested in God. Do not recognise people by what they call themselves, but how they act. You mean like when they assert that they are only free if others are not? Like that bit about hate and corruption? No, they don't wake up thinking they need to destroy America, but the effect of what they ask is that we the people make them free by forfeiting the same rights ourselves. And I do have a real interest in people who do nastiness in the name of God: they hurt people. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's my neighbors. They must be prevented from causing harm. They must be prevented from destroying the very things that let them be what they are.If it is moronic then it is not God conscious. You need to understand more about God. I’m genuinely sorry to keep bringing that up, but it is alarmingly clear that you have no understanding whatsoever.Yes, I understand that you're genuinely sorry. But Jan ... tell me what any religious faith gets people if its living and tangible result is bad? What? Should I tie you up to a stake and set you on fire and have faith that I'm doing what's right? It's happened in history, Jan, that people have done that to each other. Get as close to God as you want, and leave the people to carve each other up. You're looking out for yourself, right? And that's all that's really necessary, right? Keep looking to God for your comfort; keep ignoring what God creates in the world. What, the people "don't understand their faith"? Well, that's God's fault, and there's no two ways. The creator of the data, the creator of the source, the creator of the client, the creator of the means of transmission. Something breaks down along the way: it's God's problem if he can't state himself clearly. Regardless of what you think of God, faith in God brings human damage.

And when you stop to think that such damage comes from a delusion, one realizes that the best hope for humanity is to get rid of the damaging delusions.The same can be said of any system, if not utilised correctly. You're absolutely correct. However, something you may not be considering is the value of religion to the believers. Where people's morals might compel them to specific conduct under specific circumstances, religion is the basis of those morals. Take a simple comparison:

* Do people change their religions in response to elections, or do people vote in response to their religion?

And before we even waste time with considerations of those who use their religion as a means to justify their own greeds, we should consider that such an assertion is already on the table against religion, and also the idea of what the religion is worth if faith in it compels people to betray it.

If we limit "any system" to "any religious system", then we get to consider how broadly to define the system. It's not that I refuse Christians the idea of being individuals, or that they shouldn't be identified with others of their faith, except that they ask me to by proxy of declaring themselves unified as a body in the Spirit of Christ. If what we see is what faith in that Spirit achieves, well?
There is no difference. ‘Vedas’ means knowledge, all knowledge is born out of Vedas. So the faith points that make Vedic practice stand out as distinct from Christianity, Sufism, &c., really are the same exact points? The behavioral manifestations are the same? The effects and motivations of caste society are the same as the effects and motivations in the west? What point, then, does differentiation have?

I'm unsure what the point of the fact that vedas means knowledge is. It speaks nothing of its adherents.

So aside from admitting the internalized nature of your god-concept ("To you, but not me"), admitting that you don't understand atheists ("...have no concept or idea of God ..."), and admitted that your characterizations of people have no foundation ("Yeah right!!!"), what have you to say about the fact that you're merely reinforcing the notion that belief in god is a delusion?

--Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-04-02, 09:25 PM

*Originally posted by Teg
Well d o really want the entire list? Suffice to say objects like the telescope and space shuttles have revealed a universe following scientific law.*

I wouldn't want the entire list of how science proves itself valid.
I wouldn't where the beginning is in a circle like that.

Using science to prove itself valid is like you saying you are smart, and the proof is that you said it.
Riiiiight.

*At the same instance we have seen evidence that would counter any theory of a deity.*

Purest fiction.

*Our body of evidence being large we can only see one possible conclusion.*

You're right.
We can see only one possible conclusion, too.
People who believe in science are easily duped and not very smart.

*I shall grant your position validity when you do.*

LOL
I'll grant your position validity when you can tell me what other method you use to verify that the scientific method gives you correct results.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If you want to know the science of how, 'it just happened,' as some people would, then you have to study the vedic scripture.*

By studying the vedas one would know what all the wrong answers are thereby arriving at the truth by the process of elimination.

Great plan, JA!
Just very wasteful of time.

*Study vedic literature, it is all there.*

All of the wrong answers are there.

*Neither am I.*

Then are you hoping that people will recognize the signals you send out by thumping on your head?

*Originally posted by John Como
It's unfortunate that the futile debate between science and religion inevitably sinks into name-calling and personal insults, whereas what's needed is open-minded discussion. acceptance and yes, maybe a pinch of humour.*

It's more fun that way.

Open-minded discussion usually ends up with Christians listening to the wind whistling thru the open minds of the others.
It's no fun, unless you can get into the headspace of seeing if you can detect BFO in the various whistles.

*I think the problem stems from the fact that religious superstition and blind faith are generally indefensible in the light of human reason and scientific inquiry*

They are, but scientists persist in holding on to them long after they have become hopelessly confused.

For example, the theory of evolution is the height of superstition and blind faith in the face of solid evidence, but for some unfathomable reason, scientists, atheists, and other "rational" types persist in "believing" such pure crap.

*Originally posted by tiassa
What's wrong with "it just happened" is that it's an answer given to avoid ever having to look at the problematic nature of religious boasts.*

It's only a problem for you.
For the healed, it's no problem.
What's missing is the motivation to convince you of something which you say you don't, and don't want to, believe in.

*I flatly declare that someone had to teach you about God.*

A rare point of agreement.
Usually, that someone is God.

*That is, having never been asserted to you, you have no ideas related to Hag'fr'nalt.*

I could simply do the "atheist" thing, and say it is mindless superstition, though, without checking it out at all.

*On the one hand, let me point out to my biological progenitor, wherever she may be, that since you were fifteen and a hooker when you gave birth, it would seem that Christianity did you a whole lot of good!*

She probably wasn't Christian.
However, it is easy to see what's happening here.

You are being visited by the Lord for your parent's sins.
Partly, you have some issues with abandonment and rejection.
The toughest thing you can do, but what you should do, is forgive your parents.
Why continue the way you are, when you could dump all that pain?
Forgiving your parents isn't an indication that you wish to pretend that everything is all right.
It is an indication to God that you wish to quit hurting, and you recognize that you, given your parents' circumstances, may well have done much worse.

*What is the physical manifestation of God's work in the healing?*

Among other things, speed, absence of scarring, etc.

Taken

01-04-02, 10:08 PM

"You are being visited by the Lord for your parent's sins.
Partly, you have some issues with abandonment and rejection.
The toughest thing you can do, but what you should do, is forgive your parents.
Why continue the way you are, when you could dump all that pain?
Forgiving your parents isn't an indication that you wish to pretend that everything is all right.
It is an indication to God that you wish to quit hurting, and you recognize that you, given your parents' circumstances, may well have done much worse. '

I must in part agree with Tony here. Your anger and feelings of betrayal do not in any way punish or bring retribution to who hurt you nor do they vindicate you. The only person they punish are you, who has already suffered with out cause enough to begin with. From personal experience the greatest thing you will EVER do for yourself in that situatrion is to let go of it and forgive, not so much for their deservance but for your own. You do not deserve it and it is not Gods desire for you to carry that burden, let go and leave retribution to Him.

blonde_cupid

01-04-02, 10:46 PM

tiassa,

First, if you don't mind, I would like to thank God* that your mother did the right thing for this world by allowing you to live. Despite our disagreements about faith, I truly believe that the world is a better place with you in it.

Second, I'm not sure how much you know about the circumstances which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age. Your question "... why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?" tends to imply that Christianity was the circumstance which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age.

Do you know that is the case, or... Is it possible that your mother wanted you to be raised as a Christian because she realized that if she or someone else had not strayed from leading a Christ-like life that she might not have found herself pregnant at such a young age and she wanted to prevent you from finding yourself in similar circumstances?

Even though she was not able to care for you herself, and even though you might not agree with her decision about having you raised as Christian, it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you.

John Como

01-05-02, 09:19 AM

Many Christians - such as Tony1 - quote the Bible, a misinterpreted and contradictory book, and yet claim to know something about original thought. Ho, ho, ho. He derides the scientific approach, arguing that results from other methods are ignored. Is that a fact? And he misunderstands my intent to include an atheist column on the Faith page. Every human being has faith in many things, and atheists are no exception. Although I don't believe in god(s) or unicorns, I do believe in reason and logic, evolutionary theory, gravity, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And I believe a religious-crapola page is the perfect location for such a column.

John Como
Lord of the manor

Teg

01-05-02, 12:00 PM

I'll grant your position validity when you can tell me what other method you use to verify that the scientific method gives you correct results.

My eyes and ears.

Using science to prove itself valid is like you saying you are smart, and the proof is that you said it.

No Tony1, that would be your logic. That is the proof you ussually bring to the table.

People who believe in science are easily duped and not very smart.

Case in point. Where is your evidence? I can easily say the same thing about christians/religious people and guess what, with Jehovah's witnesses as a starting I would have a good case. (Talk about being duped. They were told to give their money and wait for the big event on the mountain side. Nothing happened and so they continued the religion anway.) Thousands of such instances abound.

Avatar

01-05-02, 12:50 PM

"(Talk about being duped. They were told to give their money and wait for the big event on the mountain side. Nothing happened and so they continued the religion anway.) Thousands of such instances abound."

Here's your 1001:) , quite funny.
In Japan[i think] there was this sect. The leader had persuaded all members to give all their property him and he will dispose of the wreched wealthyness, which may ruin entering the heavens. the year was 1999. It was told for all members to stay in their empty houses[armageddon was beying awaited somewhere in mid-summer] and stey there for a week in solitude and prayers and then they shall be let in paradise or somewhere else.
While those idiots were sitting in their houses tht goy gathered all money he had got from them and travelled smwhere far. When those stupid morans realised they were duped, thoy gathered, found tht guy[i duno how] and killed him, by nailing him to the gates of his new house.

I dono who will christians try to kill, when they realise they have been duped:)

tony1

01-05-02, 02:41 PM

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
I truly believe that the world is a better place with you in it.*

You'd have nothing to go on.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

The place is much worse because of tiassa.
The reason we're talking to him is so that he will realize that, and repent so that it will become a better place.

*it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you. *

It could be that she completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa.
May as well face the facts.

On the other hand, God is right there ready to be a father to fatherless and motherless tiassa.

A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land.
(Psalms 68:5,6, KJV).

Don't fight back so much, tiassa, you end up living in a wasteland when you do.

*Originally posted by John Como
Many Christians - such as Tony1 - quote the Bible, a misinterpreted and contradictory book, and yet claim to know something about original thought. Ho, ho, ho.*

Your argumentum ad hohohum approach is interesting, yet curiously without merit.

*He derides the scientific approach, arguing that results from other methods are ignored. Is that a fact?*

Argumentum ad question mark?
Well, rather than wearing out your question mark key, how about giving us what an atheist thinks of as methods other than the scientific method?

* I do believe in reason and logic, evolutionary theory, gravity, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And I believe a religious-crapola page is the perfect location for such a column.*

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about a crapola page.
In that case, I agree with putting your thoughts on such a page.

You haven't actually addressed the issue of what other results you have compared the conclusions of science with.
You know, to establish whether they are valid or not.
I think you know that science has come up with a lot of stuff.
Wouldn't it be nice to know if any of it were true?

*Originally posted by Teg
My eyes and ears.*

Teg, Teg, Teg, you're missing the point by so much that I think you've slipped into an alternate universe.

Your eyes and ears are what you used to arrive at your present conclusions.
What OTHER results do you have to verify the accuracy of your "eyes and ears?"

*No Tony1, that would be your logic.*

I use that logic to discuss things with atheists, i.e. it is borrowed, and from you.
What other method did you use to prove that the scientific method is a valid method?
So far, all you've done is assumed that it was valid.

*Case in point. Where is your evidence?*

You believe in evolution, with no evidence.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" you used to arrive at the ToE is itself unproven as a valid method for arriving at conclusions.

bdmart

01-05-02, 03:13 PM

Archaeology has discovered thousands of things which prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Astronomy agrees with Genesis that the world had a beginning.

Geology supports the order of creation presented in Genesis 1, following its approach that the universe came first, the world was formed next, that life began in the sea, with the lower forms of life appearing first, and that man is the highest and latest form of life to appear.

Physics [ the second Law of Thermodynamics] shows the world is running out of available energy. Hence the world cannot be eternal but must have a beginning.

Mathematics [the Law of Probability] shows that the world did not happen by chance but was designed by an intelligent power.

Biology teaches that each creature reproduces its own kind.

Anthropology shows that there is only one race of mankind [ Acts 17:26] with different ethnic groupings within it. This indicates a common ancestor for all men.

Fairy tales: I don't think so.

Avatar

01-05-02, 04:02 PM

Archaeology has discovered thousands of things which prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.
be more specific

Astronomy agrees with Genesis that the world had a beginning.
I do not think tht astronomy agrees that the world was created in seven days. And astronomy doesn't agree tht anything was created. It formed. The earht formed from clouds of gasses and matter. The universe formed after big bang, not was created by smone.

Geology supports the order of creation presented in Genesis 1, following its approach that the universe came first, the world was formed next, that life began in the sea, with the lower forms of life appearing first, and that man is the highest and latest form of life to appear.
Do you think that we are the highest step of evolution?:D
I think not. . OK, OK, there may be undiscovered ancient civilizations there. I think tht I can agree to Atlantis evidence, but this is not the right thread to discuss it. Some of our scientists may not agree, but there is proof(not complete though) that homo sapien like humans(not some homo eructus monkey likes, lusy likes) existed 5 millions of years ago. A lot of scientists don't like it and a lot of christians too. First do not like it because it somehow disprooves the evolution theory, Second do not like it because it shows tht there wasn't created one human in beggining, but there vere different side branches.
And I do not think that geology supports tht 7 day creation period.

Physics [ the second Law of Thermodynamics] shows the world is running out of available energy. Hence the world cannot be eternal but must have a beginning.

All ethnic groups have their creational myths and all have "the last battle" "armageddon" "the last days" " ragnarjok"(spelling)
Christian myth isn't unique. In fact Jewish weren't the first ones to think of it.

Mathematics [the Law of Probability] shows that the world did not happen by chance but was designed by an intelligent power.

Quite opposite. It shows tht there is probability ie anything can happen randomly. and this is also a very "slicky" law.

Biology teaches that each creature reproduces its own kind.

You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that.

Anthropology shows that there is only one race of mankind [ Acts 17:26] with different ethnic groupings within it. This indicates a common ancestor for all men.

Recent studyes show that neanderthals were a different specie, definetely not homo sapiens. And they coexisted in one time, different species of homo. Also check back Atlantis civilization.

I have different prints about 5 000 000 year old homo sapiens, but their all in Latvian. If smone really wants, I can translate some parts or link the author and books.

Taken

01-05-02, 04:18 PM

I would just like to bring up once more that the actuall scriptures did not say that creation was 7 days...it said the "Earth was FORMED....and that God moved VIOLENTLY over the face of the water. Leaving one with the impresion that there was in fact some great cataclysmic event. And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.

It goes against the translation version of the scriptures...most prominently the KJV...but science does in fact cooberate the actuall scriptures. Just can't seem to get most Christians to pull their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear that.

blonde_cupid

01-05-02, 04:20 PM

tony1,

***And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).***

What? You lost me there. What does this have to do with what I said about the world being a better place with tiassa in it?

***The place is much worse because of tiassa.***

How so?

***The reason we're talking to him is so that he will realize that, and repent so that it will become a better place.***

Is that really the reason I'm talking to tiassa?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*it seems by evidence of her intention that she truly loved you.*

It could be that she completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa.
May as well face the facts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, according to your reasoning, the adoption papers included a provision that tiassa be brought up as a Christian because the biological mother completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she cared about the religious/spiritual upbringing of the child?

Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?

Avatar

01-05-02, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Taken
And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.

Ok, Ok, if you say so. But this brings up one more big question. Why God needed to devide his creation of earth and/or earth in seven periods. Does he has some kind of day squedule. He has a plan and he follows that plan. At 1pm I'll do tht and I'll go to sleep at 1am[god needed rest after creating all this, its in the bible smwhere] . That means tht God doesn't rule over time, he has no control over it and thus needs to plan his activities according to it.
here is Stephens Hawkings famous question- Did God have a choice when creating universe? and going from this - Has God a choice to destroy this universe or not? Maybe he can't do that?
again I'm a little off topic:)

Taken

01-05-02, 05:04 PM

Good question. We do not know that those 7 incriments of time were equal in length. It could have elluded to 7 stages or eras just as we scientifically break those process' of evolution in to stages and eras of developement. The number 7 does have a lot of Biblical relevance just as the number 40 does. I do not feel qualified to make any great assumptions on that except to say we are aware that all the cycles of the earth, the form of the universe, our science, physics, astronomy, calendar, seasons...are all numerically based. In short their is a method to the madness. As for a detailed analysis of the relevance of those numbers I can't say...but I do not believe they are random.

tony1

01-05-02, 05:45 PM

*Originally posted by Avatar
You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that. *

Oh oh, that simple little statement disproves evolution.
If you can't have different species mating then you can't have evolution.

*Originally posted by Taken
And the word used for the incrimint of time did not mean a 24 hour day but an age or era or undefined lenght of time. Could have been 7 years, 7 thousand years, 7 million years....etc.*

What 7-million-year period has a morning and an evening, pray tell?

*It goes against the translation version of the scriptures...most prominently the KJV*

It goes against the normal meaning of "morning" and "evening," too.
Damn the meaning, full speed ahead, huh, Taken?

*...but science does in fact cooberate the actuall scriptures. Just can't seem to get most Christians to pull their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear that.*

O Great Mistress of Auricular Phalangism!
Science corroborates the Bible, but the Bible does NOT corroborate evolution.

Think of it this way, you can give birth to your kids but they can't give birth to you.
Similarly, the word of God is the source of all of man's knowledge, but all of man's knowledge is NOT the source of the word of God.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
What does this have to do with what I said about the world being a better place with tiassa in it?*

The universe is actually a worse place with tiassa in it, as in "not good."

*How so?*

And the LORD God said, It is not good...
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

*Is that really the reason I'm talking to tiassa?*

Well, I hope you're not trying to drive him to suicide.

*So, according to your reasoning, the adoption papers included a provision that tiassa be brought up as a Christian because the biological mother completely hated the idea of being pregnant with tiassa?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort?

If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she cared about the religious/spiritual upbringing of the child?

Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?*

Sure, but there is no point in candy-coating the issue.
As for abortion, maybe abortion was hated even more.

In any case, it is obvious the tiassa was severely rejected.
There is no need for that rejection, however just saying "there, there," won't fix the problem.

If tiassa quits running away from God for even a couple of seconds, the acceptance of God will overrule the rejection by everyone else.

*Originally posted by Avatar
That means tht God doesn't rule over time, he has no control over it and thus needs to plan his activities according to it.*

That would be the rebellious approach.
God, being the ruler of time, can also plan a schedule using time.

*Did God have a choice when creating universe?*

Yes, and he chose to do it.

*Has God a choice to destroy this universe or not?*

Yes, and he will.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
(Revelation 21:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by Taken
It could have elluded to 7 stages or eras just as we scientifically break those process' of evolution in to stages and eras of developement.*

Hellloooooooo, Taken!
It calls them days, because they have evenings and mornings!

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, KJV).

Tiassa

01-05-02, 07:01 PM

Your question "... why did she want me to follow the route that led her to where she was?" tends to imply that Christianity was the circumstance which lead your mother to find herself pregnant at such a young age.

Do you know that is the case, or... Is it possible that your mother wanted you to be raised as a Christian because she realized that if she or someone else had not strayed from leading a Christ-like life that she might not have found herself pregnant at such a young age and she wanted to prevent you from finding yourself in similar circumstances? Interesting angle, but consider a couple of points:

* If she strayed from Christianity, we might consider my original point of well, it seemed to not gain her much if God let her stray.
* Furthermore, if that was her motive, why not arrange the adoption through a local church instead of mounting stipulations when putting the child up for general adoption? I mean, what, is the state going to come and take away my last name if I reach 18 without ever having seen the inside of a Christian church? Really? If it was that important a sentiment, why not take a greater step to ensure that I receive that upbringing?
* In fact, I did ask the question when I was thirteen: it does not appear that it would have mattered in terms of the stipulation whether I was Catholic, Quaker, or a snake-handling revivalist. Anything biblical seemed to be the idea. (But not Judaism; "Christian" is the specification.)If she completely hated the idea, then why do you think she didn't abort? To be honest, I think it was a matter of timing. I was born four months after Roe v. Wade was decided; some doctors drew an immediate line at fetal viability and some at first or second trimester dates; depending on the doctor or the family inclination, it may not have been much of a consideration. Among Christians who do abort, let me note that from consitent observation the point is to do so before anyone knows your little girl is pregnant: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm Since she was only 15, maybe, just maybe, her parents or guardians had something to do with her not keeping her child?Actually, there's a family scandal in there, I think. By the story, blood relations are a mystery. The reality of the situation suggests that blood relations are closer than that. I'm not going to bother with the genetic sleuthing because as far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of simple dignity and integrity if these people are so determined to perpetuate a falsehood. Incidentally, as a laughable note: when my family would refer to the ethnicities of my biological parentage--and how much they know of this mysterious child-mother is also intriguing--it's worth noting that those ethnicities "switched" to cover the fact that I bear three physical markers resembing a nearby male relative who A) is old enough to be my father, and B) was a high schoool teacher at the time of my birth. (Toward that point, it's worth noting that the hospital I was born at was the nearest major hospital to the school district in which he taught.) Now, suddenly, at age 17, the story switched and my mother was white instead of Asian.

The only part of my psyche that it really affects that wasn't preexisting to the collapse of the mundane tale of my origin is the fact that I would hope that people understand why I reject bad storytelling. If I ever finish the novel ... well, really, if I wrote that as a novel, how believable would it be? It's like a couple of my best friends: if I wrote them as characters and did it properly, they would not be plausible to the average reader. Likewise with my life: it's incredibly boring except that people tell me otherwise.

But very little of it is believable in a certain sense. As a bar conversation, you might nod and say it's fascinating or that it's funny or that it doesn't quite fit together even still. But imagine it as a published story. It would sound a little like a bad, five hundred page romance novel. And I can't stand a bad story.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

bdmart

01-05-02, 07:09 PM

*Originally posted by Avatar
You don't have to learn biology to understand that you won't have children if you are fcking with sheep. i.e. our ancestors didn't need to know biology to understand that. *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution.

And Avatar,

I don't want or have the time to do a research on Archaeology
and Astronomy, I think you and the ones that think like you already have your minds made up on what you believe.

Generally, scientific archaeology has exploded many
extreme theories and false assumptions that used to be
paraded in scholarly circles as settled facts. No longer can
higher criticism dismiss the Hebrew patriarchs as mere
legendary figures, or deny that Moses could write, or assert that
the Mosaic legislation is completely anachronistic for such an
early age. These and other extreme opinions have been shown
to be completely untenable by archaeological research.
Other examples of general confirmation of the Bible are the
results of excavations at Jerusalem, Gibeah of Saul, Megiddo,
Samaria, and numerous other Palestinian cities. Cases of specific
confirmation, although of course less numerous, are striking.
The historicity of Belshazzar (Daniel 5), the authentication of the
name Sargon (Isaiah 20:1), and the corroboration of Jehoiachin’s
captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27-30) by the actual finding of the
name of the king on cuneiform tablets there, are but a few examples of specific attestations.

Archaeology Illustrates and Explains the Bible.
This is by far the most important contribution of archaeological
research in Bible lands, and its ramifications are practically endless.
It is no exaggeration to say that insofar as its background is
concerned, the Bible is a whole new book as a result of the
marvelous contributions of archaeology toward illuminating and
illustrating it. Examples are numberless. Whether it is the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs, Abraham’s hometown of Ur, the
conquest of Jericho, Jeroboam’s golden calves at Bethel, Jonah’s
preaching in Nineveh, the Temple of Herod, the ministry of Paul in
Ephesus, everywhere archaeology sheds light on the sacred page and makes its message and meaning more understandable to our present day.

Avatar

01-05-02, 07:45 PM

by bdmart-
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution-

Too bad I don't read tony's replyes.:)
But tht doesn't disprove evolution.
In the begining there was simple cell life.
All organisms were very close "relatives"
they didn't have much differences.
When fish came out of sea evolution now devided-
sea living forms and ground living forms.
while the simplest[bacterias and stuff] and less complex of these both could still mate[on see and ground], most complex life forms on "ground level" and sea at that time couldn't. so now sea is seperated from land. but the early different species on dry ground could mate and so was in water.
And by chain reaction from less complex to more complex it lead to what we have today, a lot of completely different species who have lost their mutual traits in evolutionary process.
But tht doesn't mean evolution stopped at tht plece. You don't have to date with different species to evolve.
Different climate conditions
[indian elephants and mamunts(spelling)],
different predators who threaten,
different food- it all is part of evolution chain.
Even now we have evolved to tht state, we can not eat like stone-age people. Our diggestive system is diffeent.
We evolve even now. Our very back teeth are starting to dissapear, our immune system upgrades, etc, etc.
And if you really want, you can really mate and have kids with a schimpanzee/ only 1 or 3%[forgot how much exatcly but it was one of these] of DNA charecteristic seperates us.
Maybe you'll need a little help from genetics, but if you're "lucky" then with no help.

About events which take place in bible.
I have never said tht they didn't take part.
Some of them vere made up latter, but not all.
A lot of myths are taken from other cultures-Shumer, Egyptian.

I do not say they are not true, I only say tht people misinterpreted them 3000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago and now. With every rewrite they seem more magical and wonderous. people are idialized. feats have become more heroic etc, etc. If an alien ship landed before 4000 or 6000 years in light and smoke, with rocket brakes roaring what would you consider it to be. !!!! Be Honest!!!! Almyghty God Has Visited ME. Praise the God. and latter think of ways to use it.

Jesus lived and was a great phylosopher too good for his time and maybe ours. But no waterwalking and no deadwakeuping.

I looked to what tony has responded. again he is attacking my language, so I changed and expanded the sentance about chain reaction in evolution so he may understand it better.

tony1

01-05-02, 08:37 PM

*Originally posted by tiassa
If she strayed from Christianity, we might consider my original point of well, it seemed to not gain her much if God let her stray.*

She simply exercised the same freedom of choice you are exercising as you choose to remain strayed.

*Furthermore, if that was her motive, why not arrange the adoption through a local church instead of mounting stipulations when putting the child up for general adoption?*

Were there possible legal issues 28 years ago?

*Anything biblical seemed to be the idea. (But not Judaism; "Christian" is the specification.)*

She may have had some idea that she wanted the best for you.
Why let her down, just because you may feel that she, or others, may have seriously let you down?

*And I can't stand a bad story.*

Change stories.

*Originally posted by bdmart
I agree with you tony1, I was thinking the same thing, that does disprove evolution. *

Yeah, it's amazing how evos will carefully explain how their theory won't work, and then they'll switch right around and say how the disproof actually proves the ToE.

*Originally posted by Avatar
Too bad I don't read tony's replyes.*

Too bad.

*All organisms were very close "relatives" *

See there bdmart, how Avatar is now proving that evolution doesn't work.

*while the simplest of these both could still mate*

The assumption of the ToE is that different species would have to be able to mate.

*more complex life forms couldn't. *

The disproof is complete, yet...

*And by chain reaction it lead to what we have today, a lot of completely different species who have lost their mutual traits.*

The mysterious "chain reaction" is invoked to explain how the disproof is actually a proof.
It's funny to watch in action.

*With every rewrite they seem more magical and wonderous. people are idialized.*

Sounds neat, but the newest Bibles are translated from the same old manuscripts.
Some of them date back to the year 200 AD and earlier.
Thus, nothing is being "rewritten" except the atheist and pagan myths of changing Bibles.

Taken

01-05-02, 09:18 PM

Tony you can't even read and understand English...why would anyone believe you could read and understand Hebrew. What you say doesn't really matter to anyone but you. Unless you want to start whipping out those PHD's that make you more qualified than all those who have studied and explored, and researched the FACTS. You keep following all the televangelists...me, Im gonna take a more credible approach to the facts.

blonde_cupid

01-05-02, 09:19 PM

tony1,

***What does this have to do with what I said about the world being a better place with tiassa in it?*

The universe is actually a worse place with tiassa in it, as in "not good."

*How so?*

And the LORD God said, It is not good...
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).***

And? Why do you think the universe is a worse place with tiassa in it? How does Genesis 2:18 apply to tiassa in your mind?

*** *Is that really the reason I'm talking to tiassa?*

Well, I hope you're not trying to drive him to suicide.***

Do you think it's possible that there might be other reasons why I enter into discussion with tiassa, other than the two you mentioned?

***Sure, but there is no point in candy-coating the issue.***

Then don't.

***As for abortion, maybe abortion was hated even more.***

If so, then that was a good thing.

***In any case, it is obvious the tiassa was severely rejected.***

Not as rejected as he would have been had his mother aborted him.

**There is no need for that rejection, however just saying "there, there," won't fix the problem.***

There is no need for your rejection, either. "Here, here!"

***If tiassa quits running away from God for even a couple of seconds, the acceptance of God will overrule the rejection by everyone else.***

I don't get the impression that tiassa is running away from God*. Actually, I'm pretty sure tiassa believes in God*. I get the impression that tiassa rejects the notion of God* as demonstrated by how the faith is applied by most Christians he knows.

Taken

01-05-02, 09:36 PM

"I don't get the impression that tiassa is running away from God*. Actually, I'm pretty sure tiassa believes in God*. I get the impression that tiassa rejects the notion of God* as demonstrated by how the faith is applied by most Christians he knows.'

I second that notion...and say it applies to a lot of people...and rightfully so, just look at the contempt and hypocrasy Tony and others like him dish out as some bizarr, sick brand of mercy. Why don't we all just stamp idiot across our foreheads and believe what ever he says. Sheeeesh!

bdmart

01-05-02, 10:18 PM

Avatar posted *I do not say they are not true, I only say tht people misinterpreted them 3000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 1000 years ago and now. With every rewrite they seem more magical and wonderous. people are idialized. feats have become more heroic etc, etc. If an alien ship landed before 2000 years in light and smoke, with rocket brakes roaring what would you consider it to be. !!!! Be Honest!!!! Almyghty God Has Visited ME. Praise the God. and latter think of ways to use it.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer is no, but I think I understand what you are saying.
There would be alot of followers to something like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said *And if you really want, you can really mate and have kids with a schimpanzee/ only 1 or 3%[forgot how much exatcly but it was one of these] of DNA charecteristic seperates us.
Maybe you'll need a little help from genetics, but if you're "lucky" then with no help.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never heard of this before and any chimpanzee, don't matter how
good looking wouldn't appeal to me. I don't know a lot about genetics
but if you breed a male donkey and a female horse you get a mule
that can not reproduce it self so I don't see how that fits in with evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said *In the beginning there was simple cell life.
All organisms were very close "relatives"
they didn't have much differences.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did this cell come from or where did life come from? I know
that you probably had that question before, but what is your answer
on that??

blonde_cupid

01-06-02, 02:33 AM

tiassa,

***To be honest, I think it was a matter of timing. I was born four months after Roe v. Wade was decided...***

Maybe it was a matter of timing... maybe not.

Washington was one of the four states where, since 1970, abortion on demand was legal up to the 24th week.

I'm a few years older than your mother and my oldest is a year older than you. I lived in one of those four states when my spouse and I went to a women's clinic for a free pregnancy screening in 1971. While waiting for the test results we saw a number of young females coming out of the clinic rooms, into the waiting room, doubled over with their arms wrapped around their bellies. Most were whimpering. Some were getting sick to their stomachs. I couldn't understand why they were reacting to having peed in a cup that way. Then I thought there must have been some type of horrible flu or something going around.

It wasn't too long before we were told that the test was positive. Probably due to the frenzy of the clinic's mission, of which we were unaware, the woman did not notice our ecstatic reaction to the news. Instead, in practically the same breath and in a long-suffering manner, the woman asked us if we wanted to have the abortion that day or if we wanted to schedule it for another day the following week.

Abortion was being pushed heavily in those days.

tony1

01-06-02, 03:42 AM

*Originally posted by Taken
why would anyone believe you could read and understand Hebrew.*

Yes, why indeed?
Who said I could?

*Unless you want to start whipping out those PHD's that make you more qualified than all those who have studied and explored, and researched the FACTS.*

You're just bummed out because you know I give no credence to your degree.
What do I need a Ph.D. for anyway?
You've only got a BA or BS or something and look how screwed up you are.

*You keep following all the televangelists...me, Im gonna take a more credible approach to the facts. *

What televangelists?
And, when are you going to start on that more credible approach?
So far, you're taking a pretty INcredible approach, in fact, totally unbelievable.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Why do you think the universe is a worse place with tiassa in it? How does Genesis 2:18 apply to tiassa in your mind?*

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

What part of the underlined section do you not understand?
tiassa's alone physically speaking, and spiritually speaking, except for some demon posing as a goddess.
It's a worse place because it was good before.
tiassa needs union with God to make his universe a better place.

*Do you think it's possible that there might be other reasons why I enter into discussion with tiassa, other than the two you mentioned?*

The guy's eternal life is at stake, and you want to chat about the weather?

*Then don't.*

tiassa, I need to ask.
Have I at any time ever "candy-coated" anything when talking to you?

*Not as rejected as he would have been had his mother aborted him. *

It's just that it is so very rarely that a person gets a chance to evangelize the aborted.

*There is no need for your rejection, either. "Here, here!" *

What rejection?
We've been discussing things for almost a year.
"Where, where?"

*I don't get the impression that tiassa is running away from God*. Actually, I'm pretty sure tiassa believes in God*. I get the impression that tiassa rejects the notion of God* as demonstrated by how the faith is applied by most Christians he knows.*

Who is God*?

*Originally posted by Taken
Why don't we all just stamp idiot across our foreheads and believe what ever he says.*

It would save a lot of time, but somehow I think that sincerity would be lacking if you did that, Taken.

*Originally posted by bdmart
if you breed a male donkey and a female horse you get a mule
that can not reproduce it self so I don't see how that fits in with evolution. *

It fits in with evolution like this: it pretty much destroys the theory.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Abortion was being pushed heavily in those days.*

Those days?
These days.

blonde_cupid

01-06-02, 05:07 AM

tony1,

*** *Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Why do you think the universe is a worse place with tiassa in it? How does Genesis 2:18 apply to tiassa in your mind?*

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:18, KJV).

What part of the underlined section do you not understand?
tiassa's alone physically speaking, and spiritually speaking...***

Tiassa's alone physically and spiritually? I was/am not aware of that. I thought I read that tiassa had a love interest. And, if this board is any indication, tiassa is certainly not alone spiritually.

***It's a worse place because it was good before.***

The world is a worse place because it was good before what? tiassa?

***tiassa needs union with God to make his universe a better place.***

Since I was speaking about "the world" I am left wondering if you see "his universe" as one and the same. In keeping with the ways of Jesus Christ, what tiassa might need to make "his universe" a better place is for you to "show" some compassion. I'm not saying that you don't have any. What I am suggesting is that, like Jesus Christ did, you might want to try and make more of an effort to "show" compassion for others in a way that people understand it. You think tiassa doesn't have union with God* and you think that if he did that "his universe" would be a better place? How about you? Do you think that there is anything that you could change about yourself and your relationship with God* to make the world a better place?

*** *Do you think it's possible that there might be other reasons why I enter into discussion with tiassa, other than the two you mentioned?*

The guy's eternal life is at stake, and you want to chat about the weather?***

All of our eternal lives are at stake tony1. Your's, mine, tiassa's and everyone else's.

So... When did I mention the weather? BTW... How's the weather by you?:) Let's see... So that's three reasons why I might discuss things with tiassa. Can you think of any more possible reasons?

*** *Then don't.*

tiassa, I need to ask.
Have I at any time ever "candy-coated" anything when talking to you?***

Forgive me but, your approach reeks of sour balls (which is one type of candy). They can make the tongue bitter, if you know what I mean.

*** *Not as rejected as he would have been had his mother aborted him. *

It's just that it is so very rarely that a person gets a chance to evangelize the aborted.***

With the approach you are taking, you might as well be evangelizing the aborted. Please consider a more compassionate approach. You know... one that is more in keeping with the way Jesus Christ related to people.

*** *There is no need for your rejection, either. "Here, here!" *

What rejection?
We've been discussing things for almost a year.
"Where, where?"***

Look around you. I guess you don't realize it but, contrary to the loving and accepting approach the Jesus Christ which I know taught, by example, your approach is coming across as very negative and exclusionary.

*** *I don't get the impression that tiassa is running away from God*. Actually, I'm pretty sure tiassa believes in God*. I get the impression that tiassa rejects the notion of God* as demonstrated by how the faith is applied by most Christians he knows.*

Who is God*?***

God* is whoever or whatever your higher power might be. There is nothing in the name except that which we, as individuals, understand it to be. For example, you and I might both say that Jesus Christ is Lord and that we are Christian. However, it seems apparent to me that, right now, what you understand Jesus Christ to be and what I understand Jesus Christ to be are two different things. Likewise, it seems that what I understand Christianity to be and what you understand Christianity to be are two different things.

*** *Originally posted by blonde_cupid
Abortion was being pushed heavily in those days.*

Those days?
These days.***

Those days, yes. The discussion was about whether "timing" was a factor in tiassa's mother's decision not to abort twenty-eight years ago... you know... we were discussing what was going on with abortion in "those days". Get it?

Avatar

01-06-02, 06:42 AM

bdmart---Where did this cell come from or where did life come from? I know
that you probably had that question before, but what is your answer
on that??---

Nobody really haves real evidence to prove his theory. Neither you, neither I. But I beleive tht this is what could happen, it has high percent of probability.

First life developed here on earth. From different acids and what not stuff coreacting, You'll have to ask smbody other, what tht stuff was, can not remember now.
But it was very, very primitive. Simple, simple organisms, who stayed here on Earth the same for billion(s) of years. Thay didn't change, didn't evolve.
Archeologists and scientists have found traces in rock from these organisms. One even said tht they look like no lifeform here on earth, almost alien like structure.
And then about ?billion(s)? of years ago there was this high explosion of life. Suddenly appeared completely new different life forms. More complex and larger. Nobody really explains this blast of life. I beleive tht this life was carried down to earth by meteorite, metiorites from mars[btw, we all are marsians;)]. There are signs of mars about major collision with some large asteoroid. Thus the highest mountin/volcano in solar system was made. Mars shattered and parts of it were sent to space. I beleive tht some of these rocks fell on earth. This is from where came this new splash of life.
It is proven tht bacteria other simple cell organisms can live in space. The major threat of course is solar radiation, but if enclosed in a huge rock, bacterias could live and breed in metiorite for millions of years.

This is mine explanation. You will have a different one. And others will have theirs. But I think tht mine is more probable thn life being created from nothing by god.

Rick

01-06-02, 07:47 AM

Hi Cris,

i know i have joined late...sorry for that.

do you think you can define god by your own perceptions your own limitations,like for your senses as an example.dont you think we "ll have to look beyond the rules of this system to think about GOD.If we keep on thinking with regard to this system then we"ll not head anywhere...

in science,i hereby quote

"there is no question such as why?there is only question call whyNOT?"

bye!

Taken

01-06-02, 11:17 AM

Oh so am I to understand that people who come to worship God out of fear of demons, fire, or to get ahead financialy would actually have a "sincear" relationship with God?
My degree was 3 years in school obtaining "book learning"...none of which related to religion of any form, and has no bearing on my belief in God.
Common sense dictates that I won't go to a geologist to get advice on my health...and you are not a reliable source for facts in things which you know nothing of either.
If a man spends his life studying and emmersed in Biblical history and goes around the world to spend years digging up ancient ruins and scaleing mountains looking for the alter of Moses...then I want to hear what he has to say about what he found.
I already know what you found in your search for the 'truth" as you see it...power and wealth...and forgive me but I am not impressed. The devil can offer as much as you have, or better yet one could just go to school, work hard and get a job. If that is all life is about, if that is the best your religion can offer, then it is empty, it is just another shortcut to hard work. I refused to believe that is all existance is for, any more than I believe it is just about breathing and then ceasing.

tony1

01-06-02, 12:12 PM

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
I thought I read that tiassa had a love interest.*

Well, he does participate in some random sex.

*And, if this board is any indication, tiassa is certainly not alone spiritually.*

LOL!
He's got plenty of demons visiting him, for sure.
People aren't spirits, though, so he is alone spiritually.

*The world is a worse place because it was good before what? tiassa?*

Try reading the Bible. Ge. 1 might be a place to start.

*Since I was speaking about "the world" I am left wondering if you see "his universe" as one and the same.*

His "world" might conceivably be in his universe, and in ours, even.

*In keeping with the ways of Jesus Christ, what tiassa might need to make "his universe" a better place is for you to "show" some compassion.*

I am "showing" some compassion.

*I'm not saying that you don't have any. What I am suggesting is that, like Jesus Christ did, you might want to try and make more of an effort to "show" compassion for others in a way that people understand it.*

Jesus showed compassion in different ways.
The various onlookers viewed his compassion in varuious different ways.

*How about you? Do you think that there is anything that you could change about yourself and your relationship with God* to make the world a better place?*

Sure.
But I'm not as self-centered as you would want me to be.
I'm willing to spend some time improving tiassa's situation.

*All of our eternal lives are at stake tony1. Your's, mine, tiassa's and everyone else's.
...
Can you think of any more possible reasons? *

That is a fruitless fishing expedition, if you don't mind me mixing metaphors.

*Forgive me but, your approach reeks of sour balls (which is one type of candy). They can make the tongue bitter, if you know what I mean. *

Candy-coating is making things sour?

---can·dy-coat tr.v.
To minimize the unpleasantness of; sugarcoat:---

*With the approach you are taking, you might as well be evangelizing the aborted. Please consider a more compassionate approach. You know... one that is more in keeping with the way Jesus Christ related to people.*

You mean like here...?

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(Matthew 23:33, KJV).

*I guess you don't realize it but, contrary to the loving and accepting approach the Jesus Christ which I know taught, by example, your approach is coming across as very negative and exclusionary.*

Accepting? Jesus?

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(John 8:44, KJV).

*God* is whoever or whatever your higher power might be.*

Whoever or whatever?
You're not fussy AT ALL, are you?

*However, it seems apparent to me that, right now, what you understand Jesus Christ to be and what I understand Jesus Christ to be are two different things.*

I'm definitely starting to see that.

*Originally posted by Avatar
Simple, simple organisms, who stayed here on Earth the same for billion(s) of years. Thay didn't change, didn't evolve.*

That's what we're saying, except for the "billions."
We're saying thousands.

*Originally posted by zion
"there is no question such as why?there is only question call whyNOT?" *

Why do you say that?

*Originally posted by Taken
Oh so am I to understand that people who come to worship God out of fear of demons, fire, or to get ahead financialy would actually have a "sincear" relationship with God?*

It's starting to look like you are going to understand pretty much randomly.

*My degree was 3 years in school obtaining "book learning"...none of which related to religion of any form, and has no bearing on my belief in God. *

It rules your belief in God.
Jesus isn't Lord of your education, for sure.

*better yet one could just go to school, work hard and get a job. If that is all life is about, if that is the best your religion can offer, then it is empty, it is just another shortcut to hard work.*

The gospel of "get a job?"
Besides, you can have all the hard work, I will skip it.

Rick

01-06-02, 12:37 PM

Tony1,

Surprisingly and excitedly not here is used to bring a positive approach and outlook to the attitudes of scientific aspects,theories...etc

bye!

Tiassa

01-06-02, 02:37 PM

But if I take horsesh-t, roll it in batter, and deep-fry it, is that candy-coating?

Nah.

Tony1, you need to have a point before you can candy-coat it. Other than that, you are particularly sugary in your dismissals; you know, first there is no hell, and then the bit about the whales being crispy critters, and reminding people that you'll be looking down from heaven while they're being punished ... I'd say it's more like cotton-candy. All fuzzy and insubstantial and designed to rot away whatever it gets on.

But oh, how they like to sell it to children.

--Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

01-06-02, 02:59 PM

Good point about Washington; for some reason I think I already know that, but such was not in evidence last night.

But the point is that as I've been through this part of it before, I have come to two conclusions: that abortion was not an option for religious reasons, and that Christian faith compelled the girl to include such a stipulation in the offering. She's only forty-three right now; I know women that old who are still trying to pump out their first. That's completely a side note, but it drops my jaw whenever I think about it.

Back to the relevant point. It's just quite ironic, in my reality, that she would prescribe a religion so obviously ineffective. It is almost as if she wished a curse upon her offspring. And believe me, I've tried a few tacks on this one. I've even considered the notion that she wanted me out of religious hands, recognizing the dangers of it, and thus preferred a more general adoption than one specifically organized through her church. In that sense, why the stipulation? Perhaps something of her parents? I have to stress to you that absolutely no part of the composite history related to me over the years makes any sense whatsoever.

I had started to relate some of that for the current post, but it's occurring to me to at least blink a few times and take a look around at the state of the topic. As fun as it is to smoke and think about these things right now, I'm wondering if I'm dragging the topic off-center. The Sunday haze is well enough but you know how wordy I can be.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-06-02, 04:34 PM

*Originally posted by zion
Surprisingly and excitedly not here is used to bring a positive approach and outlook to the attitudes of scientific aspects,theories...etc*

My perspective exactly!

Scientific theories are good, NOT!

*Originally posted by tiassa
But if I take horsesh-t, roll it in batter, and deep-fry it, is that candy-coating?*

OK, so your life has been recycled, deep-fried horsesh-t pretty much from day one.
Who's hasn't?

The point is, how long do you want to maintain the same old deep fryer?

*first there is no hell, and then the bit about the whales being crispy critters, and reminding people that you'll be looking down from heaven while they're being punished*

No hell?
All this is about your dream of a suitably unpleasant hell being dashed before your very eyes?
You're bummed out because you were hoping that all the people who mistreated you were going to burn forever?

And you're bummed out about whales?

*I have to stress to you that absolutely no part of the composite history related to me over the years makes any sense whatsoever.*

You seemed to have left out the obvious.
You yourself are very down on Christianity, so maybe she really hated you so much that she wanted to make sure that you were tortured by the most horrible system on the face of the earth, your own conscience.

So far, you've been mulling this over for decades, with no resolution in sight.
What's your plan?
To die a miserable, ulcerated, bitter wretch?

*I'm wondering if I'm dragging the topic off-center.*

Nah, it's pretty much focused on you, where it should be.

blonde_cupid

01-06-02, 05:12 PM

tony1,

***Jesus showed compassion in different ways.
The various onlookers viewed his compassion in varuious different ways.***

O.K., then. How is your demonstration of compassion being viewed? How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner?

blonde_cupid

01-06-02, 05:35 PM

Here are a couple of different examples of the compassion of Jesus:

Matthew 11:28-30

28 "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

John 8:4-11

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

tony1

01-06-02, 07:47 PM

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
How is your demonstration of compassion being viewed?*

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(John 10:31, KJV).

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,...
(John 5:18, KJV).

*How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner? *

Aside from the fact that you aren't very clear on who this God with the asterisk stuck to the side of his head is, the perception isn't dependent on what I'm doing.

This is what Jesus was doing just before the Jews tried to kill him...

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
(John 5:14, KJV).

Notice the "sin no more" and the "lest a worse thing come unto thee?"
You should see Taken fly off the handle when I describe what some of those worse things might be.

This is what was happening just before they wanted to stone him...

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
(John 10:19-21, KJV).

Jesus couldn't do anything about that, so what do you expect me to do?

*30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.*

That's a good one.
You should have seen the rampage Taken went on the last time I quoted that.

bdmart

01-06-02, 09:09 PM

Avatar
Thanks for your view, I thought there was only one view on this.
Very interesting but I just don't see how a person good believe
this with this kind of reasoning.

blonde_cupid

01-07-02, 01:55 AM

*** *How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner? *

Aside from the fact that you aren't very clear on who this God with the asterisk stuck to the side of his head is, the perception isn't dependent on what I'm doing.***

tony1,

God* is whoever or whatever your higher power might be. In that way, it should be most clear to you who this God* is.

If you haven't got the message by now that the perception is dependent upon what you're doing, then I don't think that I can help you. But, I'll continue to try... As you continue to evangelize, if you can't bring yourself to be more Christ-like by demonstrating a more reasonable, balanced and compassionate Lord, then your approach will remain ineffective for your stated goal.

Tiassa

01-07-02, 10:53 AM

You seemed to have left out the obvious.
You yourself are very down on Christianity, so maybe she really hated you so much that she wanted to make sure that you were tortured by the most horrible system on the face of the earth, your own conscience.If it's so obvious, why does anyone need to bring it up? :rolleyes:

The only disturbing thing about that possibility is its degree of possibility. It is within the demonstrable capacities of modern Christianity; I've always thought the Christian moralists were just whining because they weren't getting laid. Why not take that jealousy a step further and make it proactive?

The only real problem with your proposal is that Christianity has nothing to do with a person's conscience. Religion is a drug against it in the modern function. Where once it explained morality to stupid people, the reasons for morality are demonstrably clear in an educated population. (An interesting side note is to consider the Christian interference in public education; if you blur the lines of objectivity, you can undermine the objective morality of a functional society, and incite the people to return to a subjective, superstitious morality, e.g. religious morality.)

Take you, for instance. You're unconscionable, Tony1.So far, you've been mulling this over for decades, with no resolution in sight.
What's your plan?
To die a miserable, ulcerated, bitter wretch?I'd hoped for a cometary cocaine bender, but the stuff's just not worth the money, and, frankly, cokeheads make me want to live just to annoy their sinus-dripping, twitchy asses. In the meantime, I figure if it comes down to it, I can make it into a movie-of-the-week and at least get some cash out of the deal. Other than that, it only generally comes up when the family needs to bury another something related to it.

Trust me on this one, Tony1: don't try to grasp this one. It's goofy enough for us normal people; I don't expect your sacrificed intellect can even begin to understand such issues. After all, you've never shown the capacity before. It would be best, then, if you just kept your mouth closed and put your head back up your ass, where it seems to spend the most time anyway.

Remember, you don't have much of a leg to stand on; you've shot most of it off.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Jan Ardena

01-07-02, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Avatar
In the begining there was simple cell life.

How do you know this?

When fish came out of sea evolution now devided-
sea living forms and ground living forms.

Why aren't fish still comming out of the sea now?
Has the process of 'evolution ' come to a halt?

...while the simplest[bacterias and stuff] and less complex of these both could still mate[on see and ground], most complex life forms on "ground level" and sea at that time couldn't.

What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very close

Love

Jan Ardena.

John Como

01-07-02, 12:47 PM

Really good stuff, Tiassa, although - as you probably suspect - it's wasted on ignorant & static mindsets. I totally agree with everything, including your observation about unsatisfying sex life (even involuntary abstinence) of Christian moralists. However, I think this dilemma, often accompanied by atrocious behaviour, is a worldwide problem and not confined to moralists, Christian or otherwise. Keep up the good work, Tiassa. Perhaps not appropriate in a scienceForum, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I like you very much. Peace and goodwill.

Tiassa

01-07-02, 01:13 PM

Why aren't fish still comming out of the sea now?
Has the process of 'evolution ' come to a halt? Wisdom. ;)

I can still hear Uncle Shelby's little chick: ... and I will not hatch!

Nature is not extraneous. For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary. For others, evolution is too slow. Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella? If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental. Can you conceive of the difference between adapting in response to the weather and adapting in response to the climate?What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very closeWe know a bit about radiation; imagine being monocellular, in the top layers of water, being bombarded by sunlight. Perhaps a thousand generations down the line--a matter of days?--the only organisms left in the colony will be those who have responsively adapted by thickening their cellular walls. Some of that thickening will be too dense, and those will sink too low into the water to survive, save for a few. And then those few will reproduce and maybe an exceptionally small number of the offspring will survive, the adaptation of a heavier cell wall being a new and recessive trait. By proxy of natural selection, that recessive trait will become dominant. Of the original cells, perhaps ten thousand or a million generations down the line, you'll see a structural change, say, two monocellular organisms functioning symbiotically. I once caught a PBS special on the Himalaya alluvial; they're pulling some incredible calcium structures from the strata out there. Genius design of calcium designed to protect the organism inside and, in some cases, to achieve a degree of sedimentary buoyancy. Whatever circumstances occurred in the region necessitated some fascinating adaptions. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/research/derry/publications/Neoproterozoic92.pdf is a study I looked up after seeing that show, and unfortunately for the present purposes, there are no neon signs there making a nice declaration that's relevant (it is, after all, geology and not biology). I'll leave it to your consideration to determine whether or not there's anything you might learn in there, or if it's not worth your time.
Let's put it this way: the article is beyond me unless I'm sitting with four or five other volumes at hand; I'm not that much of a geologist--but if you're going to examine the evolutionary evidence in that region, for instance, you actually need to know this material. Like comparative studies: I cannot recall ever having heard of a study which marks the major evolutionary trends in relation to life cataclysms on the planet. But to examine the evolutionary evidence at, say, the Himalaya alluvial, calls several scientific disciplines into play: biology, chemistry, geology, physics ....

Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Avatar

01-07-02, 03:10 PM

and one more about the fishes.
why do you think tht they walked out of water in a couple of years
evolution is an millions and millions of years long process.
and if you observe only some 500 years of evolution[historycal records] you can't get the picture of all evolution. changes happen wery slow.
evolution is happening all around us and even inside us, only we do not "stand high enough" to see the process in whole.

Jan Ardena

01-07-02, 03:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary.

Why?

Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella?

Probably cause I don’t need them.

If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.

Are you dead sure or is it just theory??

Perhaps a thousand generations down the line--a matter of days?--the only organisms left in the colony will be those who have responsively adapted by thickening their cellular walls.

Perhaps!
Perhaps not!

Of the original cells, perhaps ten thousand or a million generations down the line, you'll see a structural change, say, two monocellular organisms functioning symbiotically.

Ten thousand or a million, you don’t sound too sure to me.

I'll leave it to your consideration to determine whether or not there's anything you might learn in there, or if it's not worth your time.

Couldn’t open site.

Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

Why not?
There’s certainly more danger in the oceans, than there was, isn’t there?

Could you tell me if this is a theory to you, a fact or is it something you feel to be correct?
Just curious.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

01-07-02, 04:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Avatar
...and one more about the fishes.
why do you think tht they walked out of water in a couple of years
evolution is an millions and millions of years long process.

Either you have seen with your own eyes one species evolve into another, or there is some serious proof available out there.
Whichever of the two scenarios it happens to be, please post.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Stryder

01-07-02, 05:08 PM

From what I remember there is a particular type of fish that can drag itself onto and off of the shoreline, they can use their fins as kind of flipping legs. (flipping as in action)

It's also known that Octopii can also move themselves from Rock pools back into the ocean, and Crabs and other crustations can clamber around.

Not to forget Turtles having the ability to get onto land to lay their eggs. In doing so the tide doesn't sweep their offspring away, and certain beachs have become the renound Turtle Maternity wards.

All these creatures prove that something can come from water to land, in fact there is even an island where particular Crabs no longer live in water, they climb trees.

The process of evolution hasn't come to a halt in fact moving from the sea to the English London Underground (the Tube or some would perceive a metro) there are new species of Rodents and flies, that exist nowhere else on the planet. This is very try of small enclosed cave communities where the eco-system isn't so diverse as the planets surface.

Even the depths of the deepest seas hold this trait, where certain fish can't swim to the surface or they would exploded through de-pressuring. (This causes their low level communities.)

You will find that species that have short life spans evolve far quicker than those with larger lifespans, Thus new species of Rodents and insects and even that of Cats and Dogs.

I could mention again the way a world can create life without need of a "God" to overview it, just through Trial and Error.

My explaination of replicating cells was written up in the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/t5134/s/thread.html

Xelios

01-08-02, 12:26 AM

About the fishes, evolution progression through certain paths to increase an organism's chances of survival. If a fish started growing legs and walking around on the beach today it would probably be eaten by one of the many predators that have already evolved to life on the dry part of the world. It would be in the fish's best interest to remain in the sea. Before this was not the case because the land was largely unoccupied and fishes would have less predators on land than in the sea.

One theory anyway.

bdmart

01-08-02, 07:40 PM

Pretty smart fish I would say, I wonder what their theory is on us?

tony1

01-08-02, 08:30 PM

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
If you haven't got the message by now that the perception is dependent upon what you're doing, then I don't think that I can help you.*

And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
(John 10:20,21, KJV).

Opposite perceptions for the same thing.
How is the perception dependent on the percept?

*As you continue to evangelize, if you can't bring yourself to be more Christ-like by demonstrating a more reasonable, balanced and compassionate Lord, then your approach will remain ineffective for your stated goal. *

That's why there is more than one of us.

*Originally posted by tiassa
It's goofy enough for us normal people*

I think I see your problem.
You think "us" belongs with "normal."
Realistically, you mean "you" and "them."

*Originally posted by Avatar
changes happen wery slow.*

According to Haldane's dilemma they'd have to happen very fast.
You're saying "very slow," so you're contradicting Haldane, who knew a lot more about everything than you do.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Before this was not the case because the land was largely unoccupied and fishes would have less predators on land than in the sea.*

So, at what point did fish evolve suntanning lotion?
If you don't think that's necessary, just pull a fish out of water, and OBSERVE how quickly it dries out, compared to land animals who can stay out in the sun for 15 or 20 minutes or even longer without drying out.

*One theory anyway.*

And a poor one.

Tiassa

01-08-02, 11:14 PM

For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary.

Why?

Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella?

Probably cause I don’t need them. On the one hand, I think it's interesting how you split a paragraph up; I don't understand why you did that. It just took you twice as much effort to have the same effect.

There are two roads to take here; I shall explore them both.

First, I would ask the question, Why don't you need a wingflap?

And then I can look at your answer and smile gently and ask you why the fishies needed to evolve?

Thus concludes the first road. It's a little long and windy on the one hand, and a little scant on the other. But that's the problem: regardless of which notion I choose to apply, it doesn't really matter because I don't expect you to follow A) shorter, straighter, more generalized approach that leaves itself wide open to digression based on wordplay, or B) a longer, fuller argument because the majority of your posts indicate that you won't. So we can look at the second road.

For the second road, I would simply look at one of the sentences you chose not to address: Can you conceive of the difference between adapting in response to the weather and adapting in response to the climate?

Look, it's a little like the idea of programming code; a specific programming code, though. The one in your brain. Tell me, Jan, are you incapable of learning by yourself? Are you incapable of assimilating and accommodating information? Are you incapable of perceiving and prioritizing data? I don't think so, but I'll wait on your answers.

The reason I ask this is because what seems to be at stake in the general picture is a fundamental difference of perspective that pertains to how we view the code of our genetic programming.

* For a Creationist, genetic code seems to validate the idea of a Master Designer to write all of this wonderful code. It didn't just evolve by itself, right?

* For an Evolutionist, genetic code seems to validate the idea of the evolving species because, in respect to the point above, Who says the code had to be written in the start?

What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head? (I might as well point out here that I live in the United States of America and damn it, man, most of our people do need a programmer to put new information into their heads: a television or radio programmer. ;) ) Sure, my dad could tell me all about boating safety when I was six, but he wasn't sitting there programming the balance functions into my head the first time I worked the deck in rough seas. (If you live on the Atlantic, think nothing of the phrase rough seas; our swells are your ripples, and so forth.) Sure, my dad could yell at me to keep one hand to the boat, but he could not yell at me about how to react to each new wave, each incoming piece of data relevant to balance, even with a physical model of another person balancing in front of me, is still an internalized data acquisition and correlation. Result? Even after a five years away from my dad's sailboats, I could still scamper around on the deck in heavy weather when necessary.

Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once? Each adaptation, each accretion in its own time, perhaps "bundled" evolutions of necessary combinations, such as your next point drives home:[i]If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.

Are you dead sure or is it just theory?? On this one, I'm as sure as I can be without kicking God in the jewels. Take, for instance, the fishies. What happens if you evolve into a mammal too quickly? Imagine the simplest mutation: lungs instead of gills. Now I've seen fish in bad water actually come to the surface and suck air in their mouths; it's really weird and kind of scary. How many birth defects over how many fishy generations before a combination is struck upon which accommodates the lungs with one of those cutesy blowholes? Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well? In other words, they've had plenty of time to reflect. I'm quite convinced that no matter how happy the scientists were after they began communicating with dolphins, the dolphins were happier: At last! It's a start! But yeah, if a whole species of fish developed their lungs without their blowhole, they might not be a species anymore except in loving memory, and would never be able to evolve far enough to say, "Woo-hoo! Mammalia!" I mean, perch give live birth, but you don't hear them getting all high and mighty about it, do you? But to get back to the point: if a physiological trait is not suited for its environment won't last. What happens if the fish sprout digits too early? Crap! Can't ... swim ... must ... get ... away ...! And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being. So they have time to figure out what those digits are good for. Oh, hey ... I can't swim as well, but I can bounce along the bottom and knock these tasty little things up into the water so I can eat them. Shallow water? Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head! After a given period, lungs will develop. Perhaps it's a negative mutation at first as many die because it's not an ideal adaptation for the environment. But eventually, something will cause them to get out of the water. What happens, though, if none of the digit-sprouters are small enough to go unnoticed by predators, and those that are only live because they're too sickly to be of any worth, until the species is gone? I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental. It's possible to evolve out of the living endeavor entirely. Sure, we helped a few species along, but in the end, you'll notice how few aquatic species, even among those that stir the seafloor, have jointed digits like fingers. The surviving species had better things to do than twiddle their thumbs in the mud waiting for the next meal to pop up by accident. They ... well ... ate the twiddlers? See what happens if you try to accelerate evolution? Perhaps!
Perhaps not! We might note that some of the smaller twiddlers did eventually get out of the water; perhaps to not get eaten. As a part of a new food chain, perhaps something about them--that fishy smell?--made them unappetizing to anything else on the planet: Ugh. Smells toxic. (I still reject sushi. On land, I suppose the li'l twiddlers would be a bit warmer than sushi, but come on ....)

Of course it's perhaps. But have you seen some of the creatures they're tacking onto the human descendancy? Some of them have bones the size of rice grains.

Do you realize that insofar as plausibility is concerned, Steven Brust's "Jenoine" (species/race/possible gods) make a better explanation of spontaneous humanity than the Bible? And the really cool thing is that we never do actually have to write the whole thing to superstition unless we accidentally lose the planet somewhere. Why? Because unless comets, aliens, God Itself, or human idiocy destroys us or the planet, we have all the time in the world to look around and figure it out for real instead of merely speculating and then hiding our heads in prayerful shame. I mean, eventually the planet has to vomit its whole self out all over again, so there's that--the clock is ticking for solving the riddle of human origins, but in that case you ought to root for science. Sure, cosmology doesn't envision a contracting Universe, but since you're pushing for a divine creation, why should you trust the scientists on that? You can always hope for a finite, elastic Universe because then you get to see the whole thing all over again. But backwards. Fast forward the eating and bathroom parts, though. They're creepy.Ten thousand or a million, you don’t sound too sure to me. On the one hand, I'm not a tremendous scientist. To the other, don't underestimate ten thousand cells in the wild. Life is a pretty cool event. But we never get all of the record: some of it's flat gone, churned and spat back upon the earth. Spat back to be the earth. I highly doubt we're going to find the first nest of life in the line that became humanity. Whether from a single spark in the soup or diverse sources, I doubt we'll find any remains of the original living organisms on this planet.Couldn’t open site. My bad ... it's a .pdf. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:K6UtAJqnntMC:www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/research/derry/publications/Neoproterozoic92.pdf+SR+C+Explosion+elsevier&hl=en should, hopefully, work, but the point of it is that I have to be able to take these sorts of ideas--these entire papers--into mind as a single, fluid consideration with its myriad implications before I can even begin to understand the precise relationships between environment, stimulus, response, and development. On the one hand, I'm thinking of knowledge on such a scale that our Nobel Prize winners might pale in comparison, so I'm hardly ashamed to point out that such a task is well beyond my lifetime. Hey, maybe I should check into mind uploading, eh? ;) Incidentally, the typesetting on that Google page is difficult in a few places at least, and its riddled with markers from the search I used to dredge it back up. But I'm not recommending a full reading unless you're really into that sort of thing; I'm just trying to point out that such data is essential to determining, if I might quote you, What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very close

Well ... imagine layers of microorganisms in the water, and the sunlight is doing its UV best. The ones at the top are exposed to more sunlight, and are prone to more damage from radiation. This radiation damage might include structural adaptations in the short term and, with time, the dominant characteristic; these are reactions to prolonged consistent stimulus, like the hardening of calluses on your fingers. The radiation damage might also include actual genetic damage, inciting a different-than-original gene code being passed on by proxy of the reprogramming. Perhaps the water temperature rises due to geological activity; this, too, changes the organisms needs in response to the environment. It appears that bacteria might be able survive interplanetary travel and atmospheric entry and impact (and, by that, the original cataclysm that sent it on its way.) Sure, they're not doing anything for the next little while. More substantial, actually, is the recent claimed discovery of microorganisms in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. What could possibly support a biosystem up there? We'll find out, one way or the other, eventually. But the genetic diversity comes when the mutations occur in response to either environmental demands or actual interference. After many generations, the top layers of the cells exposed to sunlight might eventually bear a different genetic code than the lower ones. Both genetic diversity and symbiosis. (Is it possible that the waste of one organism might be toxic to the other, or even that one might consume the other, so symbiosis is just my preferred result of the pairing.) What are all the factors that affect the development of an organism? Well, I might as well be God if I can tell you that.Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

Why not?
There’s certainly more danger in the oceans, than there was, isn’t there? The more serious answer is Yes, I would think so.

But, to the other, think again of the dolphins. Now, if they're really so smart and if, as some environmentalists say, we are poisoning the oceans--their home--will they eventually get smart enough to evolve out of the water? Well, then they're actually stuck with us, and that probably wouldn't be the palatable option. ;)

But look at how basic some of those organisms are. Look at the food chain. It's pretty fierce down there, sure, and that's part of why some of the creatures can't evolve quickly: economy. Part of evolution is the seeming caprice of the living environment. Self-realizaton is a serious undertaking, especially if you're not in Hollywood Hills. In order for that development to occur, you will need some help from the environment. How did farming come about? I mean, specifically: imagine you're that human being or previous model thereof that actually puts that one and one together. Think of the difference between sitting atop a rock and watching carefully for predators while hunting for your very existence, and having five minutes to sit on a rock just to look at the damn rock. What luxury! Seriously, and without jest. That's a huge difference. Whenever I see a really old skull, or even the university castings thereof, I actually think of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Can you imagine being the first creature to look at the stars and just think on it for a bit? Now, what's it like in the oceans? These organisms don't appear to have achieved the capacity to reflect on such issues as the self. Well, the dolphins, at least, and I have this shaky notion that sharks are really, really tired all the time, so of course they're vicious hunters; they don't have any time to kill because they're on the go. So it's entirely possible they're self-aware and just sulky.Could you tell me if this is a theory to you, a fact or is it something you feel to be correct?
Just curious. Well, existence is technically a theory, but that's only because other people insist it to be so often enough that I've accepted and made peace with the presupposition that reality cannot be confirmed in any thorough manner. More to the issue, it's a theory. And a pretty good one at that. I already know where gods come from, more or less. Since religion started before people could write things down, well there goes that evidence, too. So even those that believe it's all the same God eventually run out of space. So, yes, I know where gods come from; I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage. Most of 'em, in fact.

Show me any theory as sound as evolution that undertakes the issue of human origin. Say what you want about what you think isn't there, but the simple fact is that they're still working on it, and judging by the size of the Universe around us, what more do you want? If the Yuban's not good enough, go for the Taster's Choice.

No religion seems to be working that hard on developing its knowledge in the same way. How many new revelations about God really get any credibility these days? There are a few, though, that seem to go about it differently, recognize different preuppositions, and achieve different goals.

Their aquatic natural enemies are sharks and killer whales; these they attempt to outswim, using complex evasive strategy, or batter to death, acting in a group. If one of their number is injured or sick they make every effort to rescue it, holding it above the water for air. Play behavior is highly developed in the bottlenose from infancy through old age, and in this connection it displays considerable tool-making, tool-using, and manipulative ability; for example, a dolphin has been observed to kill a fish, strip its skeleton, and use the bones, held in the mouth, to pry another fish out of a crevice. Sex play is frequent and is initiated by any individual toward any other, without regard to size, age, sex, relationship, or even species; approaches to human beings and to turtles are common. ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/49883CharacteristicsandSpecies.html )
thanx,
Tiasa :cool:

tony1

01-09-02, 01:18 AM

*Originally posted by tiassa
Who says the code had to be written in the start?*

Using a computer as an analogy, it so dashedly difficult to get a computer to do anything if it has no code in it.

*What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head?*

Thinks of it as Excel.
You have a spreadsheet, and you have Visual Basic for Applications in the background.
This is far too complex for most people to grasp, but I'll give it a try anyway.

The "code" you are talking about, tiassa, is the new data that goes onto the spreadsheet.
The real code, the DNA, is like the VBA in the background.

It doesn't matter what you enter on the spreadsheet, the VBA code behind the scenes isn't going to change in the least.
However, new data can be programmed onto the spreadsheet externally, by the user or some other program, and internally by the VBA code running in the background.

Thus the spreadsheet appears to "evolve" but isn't evolving, merely changing.
What would have to change to create true evolution would be for the VBA code to change, but it won't change unless the Programmer programs it to.

*Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once?*

Everyone who looks at incomplete DNA and realizes that the possessor thereof is dead.

*Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well?*

tiassas! why evolve the ability to think when rationalization works so well?
I see your point, but it may still be invalid.

*And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being.*

Aaah, the ToE's primary assumption is unusually stupid and/or blind predators.
Riiiight.

*Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head!*

Oh that's what that is!!
I thought at first that it might have been a brain, but given what you're posting here, I thought, "Nooo, it just can't be."

*After a given period, lungs will develop.*

Where "given period" is an evolutionary term meaning, "too short to actually work, but very, very looong, so as to create the impression that evolution can happen if one emphasizes the words 'long time' and 'slow'."

*I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.*

That's correct.
If evolutionary changes occurred quickly, then the first casualty would be the ToE, since these quick changes have not been observed.
Therefore the changes must have been slow since quick ones were not observed.

tiassa, you need to change your name to Dilbert.

*We might note that some of the smaller twiddlers did eventually get out of the water; perhaps to not get eaten.*

Luckily, those twiddlers had fingers.
You know, to open the bottles of suntan lotion they'd need to keep from drying out in the sun in two minutes.
Or, haven't you seen what happens to fish when they're out of the water?

*that probably wouldn't be the palatable option.*

What?
I hear dolphin meat is very tasty.

*I already know where gods come from, more or less.*

Let's go with less; it's far more realistic in your case.

*I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage.*

HA HA HA!
You're too funny, "more attuned to reality than God."
You're one of the reasons God will be laughing.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

Tiassa

01-09-02, 02:23 AM

Who says the code had to be written in the start?*

Using a computer as an analogy, it so dashedly difficult to get a computer to do anything if it has no code in it. And?*What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head?*

Thinks of it as Excel.
You have a spreadsheet, and you have Visual Basic for Applications in the background.
This is far too complex for most people to grasp, but I'll give it a try anyway.

The "code" you are talking about, tiassa, is the new data that goes onto the spreadsheet.
The real code, the DNA, is like the VBA in the background.

It doesn't matter what you enter on the spreadsheet, the VBA code behind the scenes isn't going to change in the least.
However, new data can be programmed onto the spreadsheet externally, by the user or some other program, and internally by the VBA code running in the background.

Thus the spreadsheet appears to "evolve" but isn't evolving, merely changing.
What would have to change to create true evolution would be for the VBA code to change, but it won't change unless the Programmer programs it to. And?*Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once?*

Everyone who looks at incomplete DNA and realizes that the possessor thereof is dead. What does that have to do with anything?*Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well?*

tiassas! why evolve the ability to think when rationalization works so well?
I see your point, but it may still be invalid. Your point being?*And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being.*

Aaah, the ToE's primary assumption is unusually stupid and/or blind predators.
Riiiight. Hmmm ...An Effervescing Elephant
with tiny eyes and great big trunk
once whispered to the tiny ear
the ear of one inferior
that by next June he'd die, oh yeah!
because the tiger would roam.
The little one said: "Oh my goodness I must stay at home!
and every time I hear a growl
I'll know the tiger's on the prowl
and I'll be really safe, you know
the elephant he told me so."
Everyone was nervy, oh yeah!
and the message was spread
to zebra, mongoose, and the dirty hippopotamus
who wallowed in the mud and chewed
his spicy hippo-plankton food
and tended to ignore the word
preferring to survey a herd
of stupid water bison, oh yeah!
And all the jungle took fright,
and ran around for all the day and the night
but all in vain, because, you see,
the tiger came and said: "Who me?!
You know, I wouldn't hurt not one of you.
I'd much prefer something to chew
and you're all to scant." oh yeah!
He ate the Elephant. (Effervescing Elephant, Syd Barrett)Easy enough?*Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head!*

Oh that's what that is!!
I thought at first that it might have been a brain, but given what you're posting here, I thought, "Nooo, it just can't be." I'm sure that had a point?*After a given period, lungs will develop.*

Where "given period" is an evolutionary term meaning, "too short to actually work, but very, very looong, so as to create the impression that evolution can happen if one emphasizes the words 'long time' and 'slow'."Thank you for reinforcing my point. I'm sure that if you go back and read the context of the citation you chose, you'd think differently about your response.*I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.*

That's correct.
If evolutionary changes occurred quickly, then the first casualty would be the ToE, since these quick changes have not been observed.
Therefore the changes must have been slow since quick ones were not observed. Wow ... I thought you almost had a point for a minute. Then you pushed it, and blew it.Luckily, those twiddlers had fingers.
You know, to open the bottles of suntan lotion they'd need to keep from drying out in the sun in two minutes.
Or, haven't you seen what happens to fish when they're out of the water? And maybe by the time they get out of the water, they're not fish anymore? :rolleyes: *that probably wouldn't be the palatable option.*

What?
I hear dolphin meat is very tasty. Well, I prefer a deliberate joke to that crap you call debating. I admit, your way is really easy. You don't even have to think, it seems.*I already know where gods come from, more or less.*

Let's go with less; it's far more realistic in your case. I know more about where gods come from than you do. So there.*I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage.*

HA HA HA!
You're too funny, "more attuned to reality than God."
You're one of the reasons God will be laughing.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).What? You can't do better than what we already expect? Get a new act. It's not like we couldn't see that one coming from a mile away, Einstein. :rolleyes:

--Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-09-02, 03:11 AM

*Originally posted by tiassa
And?*

You sensed the absence of a point, no doubt.
Exactly, no code means no nothing.
No evolution.

*And?*

Like I said, it was to difficult for you to understand.

*What does that have to do with anything?*

Hmmm.
I guess you forgot what your point was.
Evolution assumes living creatures, so dead creatures don't evolve, except into putrefaction.

*Your point being?*

Seeing as my point was agreeing with your point, I'm not surprised that you wouldn't recognize your own point.
I had some difficulty distinguishing it from nothingness, myself.

*Hmmm ...Easy enough?*

Well, definitely stupid enough.

*I'm sure that had a point?*

What a risky thing to say when we're discussing the top of your head.
And, yes, it does have a point.

*Thank you for reinforcing my point. I'm sure that if you go back and read the context of the citation you chose, you'd think differently about your response.*

Without that reinforcement, it would have been pure hot air.
Glad to help a little.
And I don't think I'd want to change my response, since your response is based on pot smoke.
You'll see what I mean if you ever reread your own post.

*Then you pushed it, and blew it.*

It's tough discussing the ToE.
The slightest joke, or comment of any kind, and it blows the ToE all to hell.

*And maybe by the time they get out of the water, they're not fish anymore?*

Presumably, you are talking about some slooooooooooooooow animals here.
You're thinking that these mythical fish/animals are going to take, what, like 20 million years to get out of the water.
Isn't that a little slow even for a total stoner like yourself?

BTW, where will they be mating while they are taking so long to get out of the water?
In the water, on the beach, or just at the waterline?

*Well, I prefer a deliberate joke to that crap you call debating. I admit, your way is really easy. You don't even have to think, it seems.*

It depends on the opposing side, so no, I don't think much when I'm debating you.

*I know more about where gods come from than you do. So there.*

I was thinking from an ontological perspective.
I agree that on a minute-by-minute basis, you are right up to speed.
A few tokes, and the gods and goddesses just float right on over.

*It's not like we couldn't see that one coming from a mile away, Einstein.*

Since you liked it so much...

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

I'd ponder that a bit, to find out what that might mean.
It doesn't mean the same as the laughing Buddha, you know.

Jan Ardena

01-09-02, 06:51 AM

Tiassa,

Thanks for your reply.
Obviously I don't agree with your analasys, but i would also like to stop the bickering that occurs between my and yourself, because we are not going to see eye to eye.
If its alright by you, i would like to start a fresh new correspondence.

Below i have printed a couple of chapters out of the 'Srimad Bhagavatam,' which is a more detailed, description of the creation of the universe, from a spiritual scientific point of veiw.

Love

Jan Ardena.

DIVISIONS OF CREATION
CANTO 3 Ch.10

Sri Vidura said: O great sage, please let me know how Brahma the grandfather of the planetary inhabitants, created the bodies of the living entities from his own body and mind after the disappearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

O greatly learned one, kindly eradicate all my doubts, and let me know of all that I have inquired from you from
the beginning to the end.

Suta Goswami said: O son of Bhrgu, the great sage Maitreya Muni, thus hearing from Vidura, felt very much enlivened. Everything was in his heart, and thus he began to reply to the questions one after another.

The greatly learned sage Maitreya said: O vidura, Brahma thus engaged himself in penances for one hundred celestial years, as advised by the Personality of Godhead, and applied himself in devotional service to the Lord.

Thereafter Brahma saw that both the lotus on which he was situated and the water on which the lotus was growing were trembling due to a string, violent wind.

Long penance and transcendental knowledge of self-realization had matured Brahma in practical knowledge, and thus he drank the wind completely, along with the water.

Thereafter he saw that the lotus on which he was situated was spread throughout the universe, and he contemplated how to create all the planets, which were previously merged in that very same lotus.

Thus engaged in the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Brahma entered into the whorl of the lotus, and as it spread all over the universe he divided it into three divisions of worlds and later into fourteen divisions.

Lord Brahma is the most exalted personality in the universe because of his causeless devotional service unto the Lord in mature transcendental knowledge. He therefore created all the fourteen planetary divisions for inhabitation by the different types of living entities.

Vidura inquired from Maitreya: O my lord, O greatly learned sage, kindly describe eternal time, which is another form of the Supreme Lord, the wonderful actor. What are the symptoms of that eternal time? Please describe them to us in detail.

Maitreya said: Eternal time is the primeval source of the interactions of the three modes of material nature. It is unchangeable and limitless, and it works as the instrument of the Supreme Personality of Godhead for His pastimes in the material creation.

The cosmic manifestation is separated from the Supreme Lord as material energy by means of kala, (time) which is the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Lord. It is situated as the objective manifestation of the Lord under the influence of the same material energy of Vishnu.

This cosmic manifestation is as it is now, it was the same in the past, and it will continue in the same way in the future.

There are nine different kinds of creations besides the one which naturally occurs due to the interactions of the modes. There are three kinds of annihilations due to eternal time, the material elements and the quality of one’s work.

Of the nine creations, the first one is the creation of the mahat-tattva, or the sum total of the material ingredients, wherein the modes interact due to the presence of the Supreme Lord. In the second, the false ego is generated in which the material ingredients, material knowledge and material activities arise.

The sense perceptions are created in the third creation, and from these the elements are generated. The fourth creation is the creation of knowledge and of working capacity.

The fifth creation is that of the controlling deities by the interaction of the mode of goodness, of which the mind is the sum total. The sixth creation is the ignorant darkness of the living entity, by which the master acts as a fool.

All the above are natural creations by the external energy of the Lord. Now hear from me about the creations by Brahma, who is an incarnation of the mode of passion and who, in the matter of creation, has a brain like that of the Personality of Godhead.

The seventh creation is that of the immovable entities, which are of six kinds: the fruit trees without flowers, trees and plants which exist until the fruit is ripe, creepers, pipe plants, creepers which have no support, and trees with flowers and fruits.

The eighth creation is that of the lower species of life, and they are of different varieties, numbering twenty-eight. They are all extensively foolish and ignorant. They know their desirables by smell, but are unable to remember anything within the heart.

O purest Vidura, of the lower animals the cow, goat, buffalo, krishna-stag, hog, gavaya animal, deer, lamb and camel all have two hooves.

The horse, mule, ass, gaura, sarabha bison and wild cow all have only one hoof. Now you may hear from me about the animals who have five nails.

The dog, jackal, tiger, fox, cat, rabbit, sajaru, lion, monkey, elephant, tortoise, alligator, gosapa, etc., all have five nails in their claws. They are known as panca-nakhas, or animals having five nails.

The creation of the human beings, who stock their eatables in the belly, is the ninth in the rotation. In the human race, the mode of passion is very prominent. Humans are always busy in the midst of miserable life, but they think themselves happy in all respects.

The creation of the demigods is of eight varieties: (1) the demigods, (2) the forefathers, (3) the asuras, or demons, (4)the Gandharvas and Apsaras, or angels (5)the Yaksas and Raksasas, (6) the Siddhas, Caranas and Vidyadharas, (7) the Bhutas, Preas and Pisacas, and (8) the superhuman beings, celestial singers, stc. All are created by Brahma, the creator of the universe.

Now I shall describe the descendants of the Manus. The creator, Brahma, as the incarnation of the passion mode of the Personality of Godhead, creates the universal affairs with unfailing desires in every millennium by the force of the Lord’s energy.

CALCULATION OF TIME,
FROM THE ATOM
CANTO 3 Ch.11

The material manifestation’s ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed onto a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man.

Atoms are the ultimate state of the manifest universe. When they stay in their own forms without forming different bodies, they are called the unlimited oneness. There are certainly different bodies in physical forms, bur the atoms themselves form the complete manifestation.

One can estimate time by measuring the movement of the atomic combination of bodies. Time is the potency of the almighty Personality of Godhead, Hari, who controls all physical movement although He is not visible in the physical world.

Atomic time is measured according to its covering a particular atomic space. That time which covers the unmanifest aggregate of atoms is called thje great time.

The division of gross time is calculated as follows: two atoms make one double atom, and three double atoms make one hexatom. This hexatom is visible in the sunshine which enters through the holes of a window screen. One can clearly see that the hexatom goes up towards the sky.

The time duration needed for the integration of three trasarenus is called a truti, and one hundred trutis make one vedha. Three vedhas make one lava.

The duration of time of three lavas is equal to one nimesa, the combination of three nimesas makes one ksana, five ksanas combined together make one kastha, and fifteen kasthas make one laghu.

Fifteen laghus make one nadika, ehich is also called a danda. Two dandas make one muhurta, and six or seven dandas make one fourth of a day or might, according to human calculation.

The measuring pot for one nadika, or danda, can be prepared with a six-pala-weight (fourteen ounce) pot of copper, in which a hole is bored with a gold probe weighing four masa and measuring four fingers long. When the pot is placed on water, the time before the water overflows in pot is called one danda.

It is alculated that there are four prahares, which are also called yamas, in the day and four in the night of the human being. Similarly, fifteen days and nights are a fortnight, and there are two fortnights, white and black, in a month.

The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that period is one complete day and night for the Pita planets. Two of such months comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement of the sun from south to north.

Two solar movements make one day and night of the demigods and that combination of day and night is one complete calendar year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of one hundred years.

Influential stars, planets, luminaries and atoms all over the universe are rotating in their respective orbits under the direction of the Supreme, represented by eternal kala.

There are five different names for the orbits of the sun, moon, stars and luminaries in the firmament, and they each have their own samvatsara.

O Vidura, the sun enlivens all living entities with his unlimited heat and light. He diminishes the duration of life of all living entities in order to release them from their illusion of material attachment, and he enlarges the path of elevation to the heavenly kindom. He thus moves in the firmament with great velocity, and therefore everyone should offer him respects once every five years with all ingredients of worship.

Vidura said: I now understand the life durations of the residents of the Pota planets and heavenly planets as well as that of the human beings. Now kindly inform me of the durations of life of those greatly learned living entities who are beyond the range of a kalpa.

O spiritually powerful one, you can understand the movements of eternal time, which is the controlling form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Because you are a self-realized person, you can see everything by the power of mystic vision.

Maitreya said: O Vidura, the four millenniums are called the Satya, Treta, Dwapara and Kali yugas. The aggregate number of years of all of these combined is equal to twelve thousand years of the demigods.

The duration of the Satya millennium equals 4,800 years of the demigods; the duratioin of the Treta millennium equals 3,600 years of the demigods; the duration of the Swapara millennium equals 2,400 years; and that of the Lali millennium is 1,200 years of demigods.

As aforementioned, one year of the demigods is equal to 360 years of the human beings, The duration of the Satya-yuga is therefore: 4,800 x 360, or 1,728,000 years.
The duration of the Treta-yuga is-------------------- 3,600 x 360, or 1,296,000 years.
The duration of the Dwapara- yuga is------ 2,400 x 360, or 864,000 years.
The duration of the Kali- yuga is------------- 1,200 x 360, or 432,000 years.

The transitional periods before and after every millennium, which are a few hundred years as aforementioned, are known as yuga-sndhyas, or the conjunctions of two millenniums, according to the expert astronomers. In those periods all kinds of religious activities are performed.

O Vidura, in the Satya millennium mankind properly and completely maintained the principles of religion, but in other millenniums religion gradually decreased by one part as irreligion was proportionately
admitted.

Outside of the three planetary systems (Svarga, Martya and Patala), the four yugas multiplied by one thousnd comprise one day on the planet of Brahma. A similar period comprises a night of Brahma, in which the creator of the universe goes to sleep.

After the end of Brahma’s night, the creatioin of the three worlds begins again in the daytime of Brahma, and they continue to exist through the life durations of fourteen concecutive Manus, or fathers of mankind.

Each and every Manu enjoys alife of a little more than seventy-one sets of four millenniums.

The duratiion of life of a Manu comprises seventy-one sets of four millenniums, as described in the Visnu Purana. The duration of life of ine Manu is about 852,000 years in the calculation of the demigods, or, in the calculation of human beings, 306,720,000 years.

After the dissolution of each and every Manu, the mex Manu comes in order, along with his descendants, who rule over the different planets; but the seven famous sages, and demigods like Indra and their followers, such as the Gandharvas, all appear simultaneously with Manu.

In the creation, during Brahma’s day, the tree planetary systems-Svarga, Martya and Patala-revolve, and the inhabitants, including the lower animals, human beings, demigods and Pitas, appear and disappear in terms of their fruitive activities.

In each and every change of Manu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears by manifesting His internal potency in different incarnations, as Manu and others. Thus He maintains the universe by discovered power.

When the night of Brahma ensues, all the three worlds are out of sight, and the sun and the moon are without glare, just as in the due course of an ordinary night.

The devastation thkes place due to the fire emanating from the mouth of Sankaresana, and thus great sages like Bhrgu and oter inhabitants of Maharloka transport themselves to janaloka, being distressed by the warmth of the blazing fire which rages through the three worlds below.
At the beginning of the devastation all the seas overflow, and hurricane winds blow very violently. Thus the waves of the seas become ferocious, and in no time at all the three worlds are full of water.

The Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, lies down in the water on the seat of Ananta, with His eyes closed, and the inhabitants of the Janaloka planets offer their glorious prayers unto the Lord with folded hands.

Thus the process of the exhaustion of the duration of life exists for every one of the living beings, including Lord Brahma, One’s life endures for only one hundred years, in terms of the times in the different planets.

The one hundred years of Brahma’s life are divided into two, the first half and the second half, The first half of the duration of Brahma’s life is already over, and the second half is now current.

In the beginning of the first half of Brahma’s life, there was a millinnimm called Brahma-kalpa, wherein Lord Brahma appeared. The birth of the Vedas was simultaneous with Brahma’s birth.

The millennium which followed the first Brahma millennium is known as the Padma-kalpa because in that millennium the universal lotus flower grew out of the navel reservoir of water of the Personality of Godhead, Hari.

O descendant of Bharata, the first millennium in the second half of the life of Brahma is also known as the Varaha millennium because the Personality of Godhead appeared in that millennium as the hog incarnation.

The duratioin of the two parts of Braha’s life, as above mentioned, is calculated to be equal to one nimesa (less than a second) for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is unchanging and unlimited and is the cause of all causes of the universe.

Eternal time is certainly the controller of different dimensions, from that of the atom up to the superdivisions of the duration of Brahma’s life; but, nevertheless, it is controlled by the Supreme. Time can control only those who are body conscious, even up to the Satyaloka or the other higher planets of the universe.

This phenomenal material world is expanded to a diameter of four billion miles, as a combination of eight material elements transformed onto sixteen further categories, within and without, as follows.

The layers of elements covering the universes are each ten times thicker than the one before, and all the universes clustered together appear like atoms in a huge combination.

The Supreme Persssonsality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, is therefore said to be the original cause of all causes. Thus the spiritual abode of Vishnu is eternal without a doubt, and it is also the abode of Maha-Vishnu, the origin of all manifestations.

bdmart

01-09-02, 11:09 AM

Far out, way out!!

John Como

01-09-02, 12:56 PM

A coupla subscribers to this particular thread, in my opinion, have become too obtuse, nasty and long-winded in support of indefensible and illogical faith. Cheers.

Cris

01-09-02, 03:16 PM

John,

Some of us can see no point in engaging in any further comments with such posters so there is a mechanism here that helps that process - control panel - ignore list.

When hostility becomes dominant and it is clear they have their own agendas, then why bother with them. There are others here who do present opposing views in a polite, freindly and civilized manner, and I would rather debate with them than have to deal with unnecessary vitriol all the time.

Cris

John Como

01-09-02, 07:16 PM

Cris, many thanks for cure of annoyances. Although I've worked with computers (particularly word processing) since even before they appeared on the retail market, my knowledge is quite limited and only recently was I informed of method(s) to block out ignorant and hostile e-mail subscribers.

Jan Ardena

01-10-02, 02:16 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bdmart
Far out, way out!!

Why?

Love

Jan Ardena.

John Como

01-11-02, 12:27 PM

Colourful language, wonderful unpronouncable names, unscientific, spiritual hogwash. About 30 years ago, I was among a group immersed in this kind of stuff, and studied diligently before returning to a path of reason. Some folks enjoy wallowing in passages such as: "The devastation takes place due to the fire emanating from the mouth of Sankaresana, and thus great sages like Bhrgu and other inhabitants of Maharloka transport themselves to janoloka, being distressed by the warmth of the blazing fire which rages through the three worlds below."

But I ain't one of 'em.

Jan Ardena

01-11-02, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Como
But I ain't one of 'em.

Thats fair enough, but do you have to be so insulting?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Teg

01-11-02, 01:07 PM

*Originally posted by Teg
My eyes and ears.*

Teg, Teg, Teg, you're missing the point by so much that I think you've slipped into an alternate universe.

Your eyes and ears are what you used to arrive at your present conclusions.
What OTHER results do you have to verify the accuracy of your "eyes and ears?"

*No Tony1, that would be your logic.*

I use that logic to discuss things with atheists, i.e. it is borrowed, and from you.
What other method did you use to prove that the scientific method is a valid method?
So far, all you've done is assumed that it was valid.

*Case in point. Where is your evidence?*

You believe in evolution, with no evidence.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" you used to arrive at the ToE is itself unproven as a valid method for arriving at conclusions.

You call that a rebuttle? Step one: view phenomena, step two: read scientific theory that explains phenomena, step three: confirm theory through observation. I observe that I am standing still on a moving object, conclusion: something must be holding me here. Science offers me an explanation via a theory that hold uniform results. I observe that no matter where I stand the force exerted upon me is the same. Science tells me that this force is slightly greater or smaller, but with negligable difference.

I also observe that the bible is silent on the subject. History and science tells me that this book was written by primative people. I delve deeper, surely some must have been sophisticated. History describes these Greek/Roman fellows whose use of logic led them to correct conclusions about the shape and nature of Earth. While they were incorrect about a few details, they were more correct than primative bible fellows. Another observation: end of enlightened Roman people, fall of civilization and death of art harkened by Constantine's acceptance of christian religion. Conclusion: primative bible people had no awareness about their surroundings, only rants about cryptic moral positions.

Logic and its extrapolation: science win every time. In time perhaps, the world may catch up.

John Como

01-11-02, 01:27 PM

When I describe my political/sexual/religious background and disbelief, there is no intention to insult others. To a devoted atheist such as myself, belief in gods is self-delusion, fulfilling a complicated human need, period. When others insult my intelligence with their new or old-time religions, my response is often taken as caustic arrogance. Diplomacy, they tell me I gotta work on it, or forget about winning popularity contest.

Teg

01-11-02, 04:43 PM

But I ain't one of 'em.

Jan Ardena may have heightened sensitivities. Arrogance is not a trait I have seen you to display. That term may be more applicable to another person...:rolleyes:

I am only saying that Jan Ardena seems to have some ideas differing to the majority. While in this respect I can relate, I can say that I too lack the sensibilities that might make one more inclined toward following those beliefs. Fringe or mainstream, religion is always the same. Person A says something coherent, and then person B takes every word after that as absolute truth. Perhaps such gullibility is labeled as faith because they are are gullible in synchronous.

That is why we have the ability of objective perspective. As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.

Jan Ardena

01-12-02, 05:26 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Como
When I describe my political/sexual/religious background and disbelief, there is no intention to insult others.

So when you say,

I'm so used to being under attack from Christian blockheads.

or use the term,

, spiritual hogwash.

or when you say,

Unlike you, I don't respect people of faith. On the contrary, my automatic reaction is one of distaste.

You don’t think you are being insulting?
OK! We’ll see.

To a devoted atheist such as myself, belief in gods is self-delusion, fulfilling a complicated human need, period.

What is a devoted atheist?
Did you have to take some kind of vow?
Cats and dogs and hogs are also atheist.
Could they become devout?

When others insult my intelligence with their new or old-time religions…

I am not trying to insult you, but you’ve set yourself up on this one.
I have seen no evidence of any intelligence to insult, as you have not written anything of any real worth, as far as I can see, on this board.
So I don’t think you have any need to worry on that front.
Maybe you will prove me wrong, in your next post.

my response is often taken as caustic arrogance.

Now why am I not surprised.

Diplomacy, they tell me I gotta work on it…

Please listen to them.

[I]Colourful language, wonderful unpronouncable names, unscientific, spiritual hogwash.

Maybe I should post some nice pictures. Would that help?

…and studied diligently before returning to a path of reason.

Unlike you, I don't respect people of faith. On the contrary, my automatic reaction is one of distaste.

Sounds like you have plenty of reasoning.

My only expectation is not to be bombarded by verbal and written fairytales of faith.

Like the atheistic theory of evolution.

The idea of soul, like a lotta other religious nonsense, was imagined in the brain,

I wasn’t aware that people imagined ‘in the brain,’ did you aquire this information when you became a ‘devout atheist,’ because it sounds just like the ‘hogwash’ that most atheists spout.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teg
I am only saying that Jan Ardena seems to have some ideas differing to the majority.

Good choice of words Teg, it seems to differ but I can assure you everything is relative.

While in this respect I can relate, I can say that I too lack the sensibilities that might make one more inclined toward following those beliefs.

What makes you think you have to follow.
The intelligent thing to do is to have a philosophical debate, that way you will see just how silly and futile the atheistic concept of ‘evolution’ is.
Then you can make your own mind up. Following blindely, is both stupid and animalistic.

Fringe or mainstream, religion is always the same. Person A says something coherent, and then person B takes every word after that as absolute truth.

If that’s how you see it, then it is hardly surprising that you don’t understand God consciousness.

Perhaps such gullibility is labeled as faith because they are are gullible in synchronous.

You have an idea of gullibility and no idea of faith.
You are gullible and have no faith.

That is why we have the ability of objective perspective. As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.

You mean as long as you remain in the dark, you will be safe from the nasty old sun.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Tiassa

01-12-02, 03:04 PM

Jan ArdenaSo when you say,

I'm so used to being under attack from Christian blockheadsI just wanted to ask why you include yourself with the Christian blockheads? Every psychospiritual movement suffers myriad levels of intelligence and idiocy among its followers. Even the most fundamentalist and ridiculous Christian faiths still attract smart minds: consider the number of MD's who are also SDA's.

Not all Christians are blockheads in the same way not all alcoholics are violent and dangerous. Christianity is a choice that people undertake; even if one's family raised them to be utterly unyielding, there is a point as an adult when each person must choose to either be part of the world or not. To choose mastery of the world, as Christianity does, is not to choose to be part of the world.

There are those who think that the spread of Christianity actually wins humanity something. These people I find most often among quieter sects such as the Society of Friends. But even they have their blockheads. Far and away, what we see in Tony1, KalvinB and a couple others is about on par for the more consistent manifestations of Christianity in my life. Even those living associations which resemble the exchanges I have with Taken eventually break down over some idea or another. But part of it is whether or not communication is possible. Some of our Christan posters embody the state of mind among Christians whereby the faith becomes a social and therefore human detriment. And these are the blockheads of that faith. I agree entirely with John Como about the amount of spiritual hogwash put up by such blockheads. One of the tragedies of this situation, however, is that the expected unity of the body of Christ incites some faithful to defend poor interpretations of Christianity.

Take fundamentalism, for instance. Fundamentalism, by its popular definitions, includes religious blockheads by the boatload. But let's take a look at the criteria for funamentalism set by the fundamentalists. From Renau's translation of Reisebrodt's Pious Passions: Fundamentalism was coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, the editor of a Baptist periodical called the Watchman-Examiner. He used the term to designate a broad conservative movement made up of various groups within American Protestantism. It stated its position in a series of brochures, "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth", which appeared between 1910 and 1915. Published by leading conservvative theologians of the time, approximately three million of these tracts were disseminated. Sixty-four authors--theologians, preachers, and missionaries--contributed ninety articles, which discussed contested points of dogma primarily in defense of biblical literalism.

This new movement represented a minimal consensus among various conservative positions rather than an independent, closed theological system. Unanimity was founded on five fundamentals of faith. The most important point was the infallibility of the Bible, which was considered the verbally inspired word of God and consequently was to be interpreted literally, not symbolically. The other four principles of faith--the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Christ's proxy atonement of sin, and the Second Coming--were concerned with making precise claims of biblical literalism. The selection of these elements was in no way accidental; theologically, they represented fundamentalism unified opposition to the modern biblical criticism of liberal theology and the socialist reformist theology of the Social Gospel. Beyond that, the fundamentalist camp unified opposing currents, postmillenarian as wel as premillenarian, religious nationalist as well as pacifist. (11)Now, I consider fundamentalist adherence to five such points as the basis for truth in the living endeavor quite blockheaded. I can even be critical of these fundamentalist points in the company of, say, Quakers, who know that, despite the common fundamentals of fundamentalist Christianity, they are not the subject of such statements. So that when I'm furious at an event in society, and refer to the destruction of fundamentalism, these people well understand that they are not violent and, if they choose to undertake the fundamentalist part, usually take the time to rhetorically separate the common points of fundamentalist agreement from those not common. In the end, such an approach has helped me to understand a great deal about the differences 'twixt Christians. They're quite aware of what the term fundamentalist brings, but rather than seeking out a conflict, they choose to let the issue come to them; once in their house, the issue can quickly be resolved.

Using fundamentalism and Quakers as an analogy, Jan, why do you include yourself among the religious blockheads? It seems to me that you're stretching by asking the basis of two quotations from different discussions.

Is it that you're Christian? Well, you post Vedic texts, so that shows that you're not quite, say ... Tony1? Do you believe those texts literally? Without any clarifying comment, what are we supposed to think?

What I'm after, in the end, is that you're only a blockhead if you choose to be. Has it occurred to you that the hogwash to which Mr Como refers may have nothing to do with the philosophies you present? He is speaking of his whole life in those generalizations, and if the generalization is based on different traits than your own, I would ask that you accept the classification of blockheads and, in search of that Christian compassion, attempt to understand what about the experience leads one to conclude blockheaded hogwash of spiritualism. As even Teg noted, your ideas differ from the central vein. You seem to have taken some offense to that, choosing instead to classify yourself with the more blockheaded majority that has so many of this forum's atheists frustrated. If the Christians at this forum don't want to be included in such sweeping generalizations as blockheaded and hogwash then perhaps they should start showing something other than the traits which compel people to such conclusions. Posters of this forum's history, like Lori, used to remind me that not all Christians are "the same" (e.g.--not all Christians are blockheads); the tragedy of that claim is that she never really demonstrated it, and more often than not, when she lost her temper, she made herself out to be a blockhead.

What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level? A few times we've come to blows on things that I think neither of us thought should have gotten that loud. Why? Because we both seem to be reading that norm in each other. Think of it this way: no Christian ever offers me Vedic texts to give detail to the human relationship with God. When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from. The only real blockheaded traits you show evaporate in the confusion of what you're presenting. So far all we can tell about you is that you're as arrogant as the next guy, and that you devote much thought to God. Neither of these necessarily qualify you as a blockhead. Did you ever notice how some spiritualities claim to benefit people (collectively) while the adherents seem to focus on the selves? There must be some larger involvement to this than the self, or else society and all its rules--including those established by the religions which governed and aided society--become pointless, and God is reduced to a petty taskmaster with nothing better to do than f--k with life on Earth. The blockheads don't understand this larger part. I can guarantee John Como that many a fine, fine Christian has slipped right by him in his day, and that many a fine, fine atheist has seemed to be religious. I'm quite sure that those religious people that slipped by aren't blockheads, or else he would have noticed. And those atheists seeming religious? Well, that is pretty blockheaded, isn't it? (Seriously, undereducated atheism is as dangerous as undereducated theism; the point is that the common dimension is undereducated. Without education, people have the tendency to do the same things to any idea: internalize, project, justify a priori, fight. )

What it comes down to is that there is an element of truth in John Como's generalizatons. Especially if, as we cannot at this time know, such blockheaded hogwash dominates the data set relevant to the issue. In that sense, I know the feeling. It is my persistent hope in human nature that compels me to even bother with that menace called Christianity. If I merely assumed, as they did, the darkness of being born into sin, I would be prepared to expect the worst out of people, and thus would have stopped communicating, and possibly proactively worked to destroy Christianity. The data set by which my perceptions and expectations are colored is a dreary one, indeed, where religions are concerned. Perhaps it is God's will, then, that you be the aberration from Mr Como's data set? Perhaps it is God's will, then, that such not be the aberration, but the standard? God demands faith, logic demands demonstration. One can never demonstrate the existence of God, but one can demonstrate quite clearly what belief in God earns the individual and the society in the living endeavor. And I'm willing to bet cash that, like my own data set, Mr Como's experiences with religion are dominated by the observational result that belief in God gets nobody anything good. Where this results in or else reinforces his atheism, I've merely chosen to take the only applicable definition of God that works and run with it. Most religions are no less superstitious than knocking on wood, throwing petty coinage into a fountain, or tossing salt over your left shoulder after spilling it.

So we must consider that if the clear and convincing majority of Mr Como's data set persuades him to regard aspects of spiritualism as blockheaded hogwash, it reflects a certain truth. If, for instance, I tell you that you look like shite, well? But if you've just come back from a four-day march hip-deep in mud and horsepucky and the blood of your slain enemies ... yeah, you look like shite. It's a proper reflection of the moment, not an insult. If, therefore, what Mr Como has before him to examine leads him to conclude blockheaded hogwash, it might well be that what he sees actually is blockheaded hogwash. If he chooses to be more specific about blockheaded hogwash, so much the better. If he chooses to leave it at that, it's still within the standards set by a couple of our theistic posters. Who says he ever has to tell us what he means? Isn't it left to you to figure out the same way we are all, often, left to figure out what the heck someone's talking about? I did, once, witness a fight over a racial insult that actually resulted from the insulted person not hearing the whole conversation; that the black ones were ugly spoke of hand-carved chess pieces, and not people. I must urge you not to include yourself among the generalized if you have to assume the range of generalization. By proactively engaging the idea, you run the risk of reinforcing such generalizations.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-12-02, 03:51 PM

*Originally posted by Teg
You call that a rebuttle?*

No.
Besides, I'd call it a rebuttal, if it was one.
It's actually more like snapping my fingers in front of your eyes to see if anyone is home.

*Step one: view phenomena, step two: read scientific theory that explains phenomena, step three: confirm theory through observation.*

That isn't the scientific method; that is the Teg method.

I was talking about the scientific method, and I asked what OTHER methods you use to verify your conclusions with.

*I also observe that the bible is silent on the subject.*

For good reason.
The results produced by the scientific method are unreliable.
They may be repeatable, as may many errors, but they are not verifiable.
Hence they are not reported in the Bible because they are wrong.

*History and science tells me that this book was written by primative people.*

Nowhere near as primitive as those who wrote the science and the history books.
Nowhere near as dumb, either.
Science and history book writers seem to think that they know something, when it is clear that they don't.
Big Bangers, for example, can't possibly know what they are talking about, but they write as though their thoughts are not pure random guesses.

*History describes these Greek/Roman fellows whose use of logic led them to correct conclusions about the shape and nature of Earth. While they were incorrect about a few details, they were more correct than primative bible fellows.*

Both said the Earth was round, so how is one "more correct" than the other?

*Another observation: end of enlightened Roman people, fall of civilization and death of art harkened by Constantine's acceptance of christian religion. Conclusion: primative bible people had no awareness about their surroundings, only rants about cryptic moral positions.*

I can see that you are unusually dense and uninformed about things.
Constantine accepted Catholicism, not Christianity.

*Logic and its extrapolation: science win every time. In time perhaps, the world may catch up. *

It'll be in flames long before then.
Science loses every time for the simple reason that it is an unverified process.
While it is easy to find those who will gladly intone that it is indeed verified, they are simply lying.

*Originally posted by John Como
my response is often taken as caustic arrogance.*

Nah, just foolishness.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

*Originally posted by Teg
That is why we have the ability of objective perspective*

You seem to peculiarly unaware of what "objective" means.

*As long as we exercise this trait we will be safe from such lies and false promises.*

You may be safe from lieS, but you have fallen for the one big lie, namely science.
Furthermore, you have no promises and no hope, either.

*Originally posted by tiassa
To choose mastery of the world, as Christianity does, is not to choose to be part of the world.*

That is unusually perceptive of you.

*if they choose to undertake the fundamentalist part, usually take the time to rhetorically separate the common points of fundamentalist agreement from those not common.*

It is interesting that you are technically capable of doing that where the Quakers are concerned, but you are unusually incapable of doing that where the Catholics, Lutherans, et al, are concerned.

Understandably so, since you would have no point at all, if you did that.

*What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level?*

While I can't speak for JA, it is possible that JA is choosing to downgrade to the level of the norm which you portray.
Admittedly, I congratulate JA for taking such a bold step, since it is presumably equivalent to pithing oneself.

*When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from.*

Probably from the bathroom after looking in the mirror there.

*The data set by which my perceptions and expectations are colored is a dreary one, indeed, where religions are concerned.*

It is colored by your life.
Your life is like a gray, overcast, drizzly November day.

*If, therefore, what Mr Como has before him to examine leads him to conclude blockheaded hogwash, it might well be that what he sees actually is blockheaded hogwash.*

Given that people interpret things thru a filter of their own making, I wouldn't be surprised if everything that he, or you, sees is blockheaded hogwash.

Tiassa

01-12-02, 04:34 PM

Given that people interpret things thru a filter of their own making, I wouldn't be surprised if everything that he, or you, sees is blockheaded hogwash/And this separates us from ... oh, say ... you, just how?

You see, some of us have no real problem with being human beings. It is, after all, what we are.

I believe it's the Christians who are supposed to be doing a little better than that? Have you noticed how much blockheaded hogwash you've pointed out with your disrespect? Welcome to it, Tony1 ... it's the problem with being born into sin, isn't it? This is the best you can expect of yourself or anyone, which pretty much makes the advantages of Christianity illusory and fantastic. It seems then, with nothing to gain by presuming the worst in people and working toward division, you'd eventually realize the futility of the process. Too bad you don't think you're allowed to look for the best in people. Then you'd be capable of separating the blockheaded hogwash from blockheaded hogwash. Just because blockheaded hogwash forms the consistent trend among experiential data sets doesn't mean you need to add onto it. In that case, all you're showing is the result that faith in God gets you nothing. And, frankly, I think most atheists are already in on that point.

Because that is the point.

It's blockheaded hogwash if you can't show its advantages. Don't just tell us what they're supposed to be. Any snake oil salesman can tell me what the product is supposed to do. Can you imagine that? When your customer asks you why the vacuum cleaner doesn't work, you can't even figure out to plug it in? Why would anybody, much less someone who is alredy used to witnessing that futility about the product, buy it? Heck, if you just tell us it sucks up the dirt, but can't make it do it, why should we bother? It's a crappy pitch.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-12-02, 06:06 PM

*Originally posted by tiassa
And this separates us from ... oh, say ... you, just how?*

My blinders are off, while yours are still on.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4, KJV).

*Have you noticed how much blockheaded hogwash you've pointed out with your disrespect?*

Lots and lots.
I've done nothing but point out blockheaded hogwash, mainly in your posts, since I got here.
And according to you, I've been doing it disrespectfully.

*...pretty much makes the advantages of Christianity illusory and fantastic.*

Nothing illusory about not being sick.

*It seems then, with nothing to gain by presuming the worst in people and working toward division, you'd eventually realize the futility of the process.*

I realized the futility of presuming the worst and working toward division a long time ago.

*Too bad you don't think you're allowed to look for the best in people.*

OK, help me out then.
What's the best in you, and, say, your mother?

* Just because blockheaded hogwash forms the consistent trend among experiential data sets doesn't mean you need to add onto it.*

So you admit that blockheaded hogwash forms the bulk of your data set?

*In that case, all you're showing is the result that faith in God gets you nothing. And, frankly, I think most atheists are already in on that point.

Because that is the point.*

So, what point are you in on then?
According to your own analysis, you would be missing the point of not only the Christians, but of the atheists as well.

Not that you missing all of the available points is anything new.

*It's blockheaded hogwash if you can't show its advantages. *

That leaves evolution out in the cold, along with atheism, agnosticism, satanism, paganism, and any form of antichristianity.

There is no demonstrable advantage to your way of life, either.
Besides, the advantages of Christianity are demonstrable, but simply declaring them undemonstrable makes them so for you.

Tiassa

01-12-02, 06:18 PM

Besides, the advantages of Christianity are demonstrable, but simply declaring them undemonstrable makes them so for you.I don't think you can demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring or actively dismissing without merit the most part of the history surrounding the passage of the Book and its ideas through time.

Can you demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise avoiding the historical record?

Let me know when you think you can.

--Tiassa :cool:

Teg

01-12-02, 06:52 PM

That isn't the scientific method; that is the Teg method.

Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat as many times as deemed necessary and form a theory. Said theory will be tested until it is thrown out or accepted as truth. Needless to say religions have a lower burden of proof.

The typical reaction ussually falls under one of two categories:

1. Person doubts biblical propositions and questions said statements. Upon questioning person is removed from church environment.

2. Person has positive reaction to words said and remains in church setting.

A person's reaction to the religious stimuli is based inherintly on the individual's skepticism. Those who lack the skill are embraced. Those who require confirmation of claims that are labeled "absolute truth" are deemed unworthy. It is that simple.

You seem to peculiarly unaware of what "objective" means.

Objective: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices. Ignoring my personal feelings about any religion I observe that any given religion is incapable of doing likewise. Prejudice seems to embody the church. When was the last time you saw a female reverand or even a female at any post in the church. If it happens it is quite rare. This is in keeping with church positions on homosexuality and the role women play in general. The church is a backward and primative structure, led by individuals whose goals are selfish.

I also observe that Tony1 is incapable of having thoughts longer than three sentences at a time. I observe that he is unable bring any facts regarding any issue that do not originate in the bible. This is what makes his questioning of my objective position so laughable. It would be difficult to maintain such a position when you have read only one book. Tony1, your feelings have led you astray. You are blinded by emotions from stuborness to vengeance. You claim a moral high ground, but I see only an empty facade of contempt for all those who do not consider your version of the truth to be correct.

I have considered the theological debate that a god must exist. It is not a strong case yet I have at least weighed it. The holes are numerous: an assumption that a god must exist because noone can prove that such a god doesn't exist is a blatant missuse of logic. I could say that I am your deity and you would only have they same arguments against me. We cannot state something to be true because we have no evidence against it, reasoning disallows this idea. You also invoke insane arguments such as: "you were not there and so you do not know that dinosaurs existed or how the world began." In the end such arguments are self defeating. The same can be said about your version, only in your case no additional evidence is given. Your entire case resides on the reliability of one book. Any reasonable person would tell you that were that a secular book noone would believe it.

The problems go further. It cannot agree with itself:

From http://www.atheist.org
ON THE SABBATH DAY
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5

ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

ON HUMAN SACRIFICE
"... Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God..." -- Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] "... If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31).

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34

ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39

ON CIRCUMCISION
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10

"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2

ON INCEST
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17

[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16

ON TRUSTING GOD
"A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2

Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3

ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7

"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30

ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26

ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29

ON THE END OF THE WORLD
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12

"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7

These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.

CONCLUSION
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god. To do so, one would first have to not read the book, which is the practice of most Christians; or, if one does read it, dump in the trash can one's rational intelligence -- to become a fool for god, in other words.

To be an Atheist, one need only be able to laugh when such obvious nonsense is offered as being "divine" truth. If you are laughing, then you belong in the only organization dedicated to determined Atheist activism -- dedicated to doing something about the intrusion of religion into all areas of our government and our private lives.

All Bible quotes from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (New York: Abradale Press, 1965)

You are not objective, nor is anyone whose sole source of knowledge is a single book that has been proven to be flawed.

tony1

01-12-02, 08:32 PM

*Originally posted by tiassa
I don't think you can demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring or actively dismissing without merit the most part of the history surrounding the passage of the Book and its ideas through time.*

OK, seeing as you've given me a choice, I will choose to actively dismiss without merit the most part...etc.
Your argument relating to the historical context of the Bible, is immaterial, simply because it amounts to an ad hominem attack upon some person or persons in past history who happened to be carrying or otherwise be in possession of the book.

What possible difference could it make if someone who happened to be in possession of, say, a dictionary, were to murder someone while they had it in their pocket?
Are all the definitions in the dictionary suspect if that happens?

*Can you demonstrate the advantages of Christianity without ignoring, dismissing, or otherwise avoiding the historical record?
Let me know when you think you can.*

Again, what difference does it make if some person committed a crime while carrying a copy of the phone book?
Does that make the phone company a criminal corporation?

*Originally posted by Teg
Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat as many times as deemed necessary and form a theory. Said theory will be tested until it is thrown out or accepted as truth.*

What you said earlier was something about "read the scientific theory" as step two.
In any case, what you are saying now is much closer to the scientific method.

That is what is unscientifically accepted as the scientific method.
What other method do you use to verify that "Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat" is actually a valid way to reach conclusions?

*Those who require confirmation of claims that are labeled "absolute truth" are deemed unworthy.*

Hardly.
The Bible itself says that proof follows belief.
The problem is that antichristians argue that the proof should precede the belief.

*Ignoring my personal feelings about any religion I observe that any given religion is incapable of doing likewise.*

Except that you feel that is wrong.

*I also observe that Tony1 is incapable of having thoughts longer than three sentences at a time.*

I speak to the audience.

*This is what makes his questioning of my objective position so laughable.*

What makes your position laughable is that you think that by taking an "impersonal" stance that you will somehow be able to avoid the very personal death you will face the same as everyone else.

*It would be difficult to maintain such a position when you have read only one book.*

I've read thousands more than you have.

*I have considered the theological debate that a god must exist. It is not a strong case yet I have at least weighed it.*

At least you have considered it.

*You also invoke insane arguments such as: "you were not there and so you do not know that dinosaurs existed or how the world began."*

While that isn't an exact quote, the argument applies to anyone who claims that observation is an essential part of science, and then follows it with a claim that such-and-so is true without having observed it.

*Any reasonable person would tell you that were that a secular book noone would believe it.*

I reject many secular books for no other reason.

*It cannot agree with itself:
...sabbath...*

That ignores the fact that Jesus fulfilled the old law.
Being fulfilled by Jesus, the old law no longer applies to me.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(Matthew 5:17, KJV).

*PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
the earth abideth for ever...*

Starting when?

*ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face,...*

So he was wrong.
The truth in the Bible isn't in everything that everyone says.
The truth is that he was wrong.

*ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley*

"He" who?
You say the Lord, the Bible says Judah could not drive out ... etc.

*...*

...

*CONCLUSION
What is incredible about the Bible is not its divine authorship; it's that such a concoction of contradictory nonsense could be believed by anyone to have been written by an omniscient god.*

Sounds like a direct unattributed quote from Dennis McKinsey, via some atheist organization.
In any case, who says that when God reports something said by someone else, that he must revise it to be true?
If that someone else lies, then the only reasonable way to report it, is as a lie.

*You are not objective, nor is anyone whose sole source of knowledge is a single book that has been proven to be flawed.*

Your atheist buddy offered only two choices in the fallacious form known as the false dichotomy.

True, most Christians don't read the Bible.
True, many throw out their brains.
However, those two groups overlap greatly.

There is a third option which is to read the Bible and NOT throw out one's brains.

Jan Ardena

01-15-02, 08:34 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
Jan ArdenaNow, I consider fundamentalist adherence to five such points as the basis for truth in the living endeavor quite blockheaded.

Como was not coming from that point of view. He automatically disrespects people who believe in God, according to his reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism, it is its mis-interpretation that causes anxiety. Mis-interpretation is a human flaw and it is the person who should be held accountable, not the scripture.
I am currently in a discussion with Godless regarding consciousness. We, as individuals have our own independent consciousness, but this is swayed by our experiences and associations. This means our consciousness can be changed according to time, place and circumstance. As I said in my earlier post, regarding division of creation, time is split into cycles, and each cycle has its own particular characteristic. These characteristics have a profound effect on our collective consciousness, hence you get different trends. The religious scriptures are designed for people, according to time, place and circumstance, so that whatever the current trend people will still be able to serve God. The Bible and the Qur’an was witten for the people at those times. This is not to say that the essence is now null and void, but certain practices would not be socially accepted or unserstood in todays society. But the basic truth is still within, so these scriptures are both historical and spiritual. Fundamentalism is based on serving God 24/7, but to live according to those scriptoral, historical standards is virtually impossible, in this day and age. Those who try and accomplish this in the heart of modern society, usually comes into problems, which starts conflict. The way forward is to find out what the natural religious process of the day is.

How do we find out, by the same scripture. Jesus did not teach the same way as Abraham, in fact to a layman he seemed contradictory at times, but his point always remained the same.
Why?
Because times had changed. Peoples consciousness had changed.
It is the same today.

Using fundamentalism and Quakers as an analogy, Jan, why do you include yourself among the religious blockheads?

I can identify with them, that’s why. They believe in God and I believe in God, so from that viewpoint we are the same.

Is it that you're Christian? Well, you post Vedic texts, so that shows that you're not quite, say ... Tony1? Do you believe those texts literally? Without any clarifying comment, what are we supposed to think?

In truth I have great respect for both Jesus and Mohammad as powerful representatives of the Supreme Lord. To be a Chistian means to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, who was a great and faithful servant to his Father, God. To be a Muslim means to be a servant of God. So the designation of christian and muslim is just that, designations, the real aim of religion is to serve God or the server of God.
The Vedas is not a religion. It is pure scientific knowledge and by such knowledge, one can come to the understanding that our only real purpose in life is to serve God, because it is our natural position. Every living being on earth is a servant, no one is a master, to the point where he has nothing to do or accomplish, because full within himself. So we are all servants, this is our natural position, but we are under the illusion that we are masters not servants.
So who or what do we serve?
And what is the benefit of such service?
The vedas informs us of our real id and position in this mortal world.

Yes, I do believe them and take them literally.
Who can clarify?
Admittedly some of the vedic litrature has been clarified by prominent scientists, one of which was Albert Einstein and many modern day scientists also, but even then, they are done with limited knowledge and instruments.
Real knowledge is axiomatic, we may know that water contains hydrogen and oxygen, but the truth of water is in it taste and cooling effect. Real truth has an effect on you, that is how you can recognise it. In vedic literature there are points which seem inconcievable, but if you make a real study you will find points that are totally relative to your life now because it affects you. The inconcievableness of the vedas is just a progression from what you can concieve, this you can see if you read and hear.
At school we learn basic mathamatics, if you like you can progress to quantum physics, based on having basic knowledge, this may seem inconcievable to some but not to others.

What I'm after, in the end, is that you're only a blockhead if you choose to be.

Would you regard yourself as a blockhead?

You seem to have taken some offense to that, choosing instead to classify yourself with the more blockheaded majority that has so many of this forum's atheists frustrated.

I take offence to blatant ignorance.

I don’t think they are blockheads, and that includes Tony1. I think they all make some relevant points.
To be honest Tiassa, if I were to call anyone blockheads, it would be the atheists, because their knowledge and understand appears to be very stiff and dull. But that would be too much of a generalisation.
At the end of the day, we are all blockheaded sometimes, atheist and theist alike.
Atheists are frustrated because they cannot have it their own way, as yet. They constantly ask for proof of this or that, but can never come up with proof of anything, then they show the level of their consciousness by becoming childish, and start insulting.

If the Christians at this forum don't want to be included in such sweeping generalizations as blockheaded and hogwash then perhaps they should start showing something other than the traits which compel people to such conclusions.

Have you taken a look at some atheist posts?
If we decided to act in the same way, I don’t think you would appreciate it.

What I'm after is that you're obviously not the norm, Jan: Why do you choose to downgrade yourself to that level?

So you think you and the antichrist posters are above the norm then?

Think of it this way: no Christian ever offers me Vedic texts to give detail to the human relationship with God.

There is obviously a lot of common sense in vedic texts. The christian posters, on this board, have common sense and through their scripture have already come to vedic conclusions. (as all knowledge comes from vedas) Vedic texts are there for the ‘not very’ spiritually advanced humans, who need confirmation of a Supreme Being.
However, the jewel in the crown of the vedas, is the Bhagavad Gita, because it was spoken by the Supreme Lord, for the purpose of all living entities.
This text is for everyone in the universe, it is not guided by time, place and circumstance, it is beyond the veils of this material world.

When John Como speaks of blockheads, I like to think I know approximately where he's coming from.

Well, you would, because he is an atheist and so are you.

The only real blockheaded traits you show evaporate in the confusion of what you're presenting.

If you are confused, then enquire further.

There must be some larger involvement to this than the self, or else society and all its rules--including those established by the religions which governed and aided society--become pointless, and God is reduced to a petty taskmaster with nothing better to do than f--k with life on Earth.

You don’t know who or what God is, so your, condescending analyses holds no water.

I can guarantee John Como that many a fine, fine Christian has slipped right by him in his day, and that many a fine, fine atheist has seemed to be religious. I'm quite sure that those religious people that slipped by aren't blockheads, or else he would have noticed.

That is if you agree that Como is not a ignorant, blockheaded, hogwash speaking atheist.

And those atheists seeming religious? Well, that is pretty blockheaded, isn't it? (Seriously, undereducated atheism is as dangerous as undereducated theism; the point is that the common dimension is undereducated. Without education, people have the tendency to do the same things to any idea: internalize, project, justify a priori, fight. )

You speak as though atheism is some form of serious body or group in which people come together to enhance their atheistic ability and understanding. In other words, you give it credibility.
Cats, dogs, trees, fish and all other types of species are all atheist by definition.
Atheism is easy, there is nothing to it, you just have to be ignorant.
I’m sorry if I seem blunt, but it is the truth.

…and thus would have stopped communicating, and possibly proactively worked to destroy Christianity.

Wake up tiassa;
That is what you are doing.

God demands faith, logic demands demonstration. One can never demonstrate the existence of God…

I disagree, the existence of God can be demonstrated, you only need to utalise you understanding capability, like anything else, including the existence of air.

And I'm willing to bet cash that, like my own data set, Mr Como's experiences with religion are dominated by the observational result that belief in God gets nobody anything good.

I believe the atheists who post here, have a deep-seated problem with God and people who believe in God.
I believe we are in a time where everything is being wound for dissolution and those particular type of atheists are a very integral part of this process.
I believe it to be a natural phenomenea, where the atheists have made their choices prior to this particular existence.

Where this results in or else reinforces his atheism, I've merely chosen to take the only applicable definition of God that works and run with it. Most religions are no less superstitious than knocking on wood, throwing petty coinage into a fountain, or tossing salt over your left shoulder after spilling it.

You say most religions. There is only one religion, and that is ‘to serve God.’
To say that this religion is better than that one is actually atheistic.
Why?
Because it means you don’t understand or recognise God, and the god that you do recognise is limited, and to say God is limited is as good as saying God does not exist.

So we must consider that if the clear and convincing majority of Mr Como's data set persuades him to regard aspects of spiritualism as blockheaded hogwash, it reflects a certain truth.

But you have disregarded Comos behaviour. He says he is reasonable and intelligent, but then says he automatically disrespects people who believe in God.
Personally, I think he is a fool, based on his posts.

By proactively engaging the idea, you run the risk of reinforcing such generalizations.

Tiassa, read his posts again, I think you will find that he included me and my beliefs, in his writing.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Teg

01-15-02, 12:09 PM

What you said earlier was something about "read the scientific theory" as step two.
In any case, what you are saying now is much closer to the scientific method.

That is what is unscientifically accepted as the scientific method.
What other method do you use to verify that "Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, repeat" is actually a valid way to reach conclusions?
A science book tells me that gravity accellerates objects at 9.8m/s^2. It sounds reasonable and so I drop a mass from the roof of a building. Using a timer and my eyes, I test the theory repeatedly. Confirmation: the accelleration of gravity is approximately 9.8m/s^2 here on earth.
The Bible itself says that proof follows belief.
The problem is that antichristians argue that the proof should precede the belief.
That's a good con. Give me the money and then I shall prove that I have the product. You would have the sense to realize this as a con, so why are you blind when it comes to the bible? You say that proof comes afterward: so where is it? Onviously you believe, so you must have the proof.
I've read thousands more than you have.
Another baseless statement. How could you possibly confirm this? We must take your word, be as stupid as you, in blind faith?
Your atheist buddy offered only two choices in the fallacious form known as the false dichotomy.
A few specious retorts are insufficient. Something beyond faith must be interfering with your reasoning, perhaps your unnavoidable solipcism.
That ignores the fact that Jesus fulfilled the old law.
Being fulfilled by Jesus, the old law no longer applies to me.
So then you admit that you hold one book above the other. So then you selectively believe in the laws and ideas of the first book? How sad it is then that you choose those horrid fancies such as creation.
Starting when?
That has no relevance. For something to last forever is completely different from somethig have an end. A four year old could tell you that.
So he was wrong.
The truth in the Bible isn't in everything that everyone says.
The truth is that he was wrong.
Well, if Jacob is capable of lying, then who else in that book has the capacity? Perhaps Jesus would lie or Moses. These would be imperfections and by Kalvin's statement, Jacob would not go to heaven. Jesus and Moses, not being christians would not go to heaven either.
"He" who?
You say the Lord, the Bible says Judah could not drive out ... etc.

No, the word with is a direct indication of assistance. "With God" and the Lord was "with" Judah. Your arguments are indeed specious, having the appearence of truth but lacking in factual detail.

John Como

01-15-02, 12:12 PM

Although not interested in pissing contests with the blind, I would say unto thee who've taken my name in vain on this thread, verily and in all humility, John Como is nobody's fool, nobody's servant and - in fact - is the most pleasant, compassionate and reasonable intellectual I've ever met, although rather intolerant when it comes to human greed and inflexible ignorance. He has little patience for non-existent gods and yet is not without superstitions. For example, he never steps on a baseline when heading to the dugout and, during a hot hitting streak, doesn't change his underwear for days, sometimes weeks.

John Como, 1B

orthogonal

01-15-02, 01:20 PM

Jan,

"The world is full of fools; and he who would not wish to see one, must not only keep to himself, but must also break his looking-glass." Nicolas Boileau

I heartily agree with you that we can all be dense at times. And as I already think myself a blockhead, I shouldn't be surprised if others think me one as well. I can't remember ever writing something that I've been entirely satisfied with, so it's no wonder that others find flaws with what I write. Still, I'd prefer if we were called upon to defend the veracity of our statements rather than our personal integrity. Let the value of our ideas rest solely upon the validity of our arguments.

Jan, I did want to comment about a statement you made. You wrote, "An atheist's...knowledge appears to be very stiff and dull..." I've often heard this complaint levied against those of us who place trust in the scientific method. I've heard that we lack art and emotion, that we have cold hearts and a deficit of imagination.

My answer is that it's all about emotion! The scientific method is merely a tool used by emotion. Emotion demands an answer to the question, "What is this world?" But only reason can provide the answer to this question. The answer supplied by our reason is then offered back to our emotion for approval. My emotion appears to be particularly suspicious. It simply refuses to accept answers that rely on fables, myths, fairy tales, or otherwise "wishful" thinking. I am not content to tell myself comforting stories. If a hungry lion approaches me, no matter how comforting the thought might be, my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.

Religion is an affirmation of our hopes and desires. Religion is a simple device that tells us that as strange as it appears, the very things, all the very things we desire in life are in fact, true! It tells us that when we die our spirits live on. It tells us that good shall be rewarded and evil punished. It tells us that we are a part of something larger than ourselves. It tells us that life has a purpose. Jan, you and I both feel all these same powerful emotional desires. But with a bit of imagination I might invent an entirely new myth that affirms each of the above desires. Would you be suspicious that my myth just so happened to affirm every one of your great desires of life? Or would it sound a bit too contrived and convenient, such as telling oneself that the lion is only a lamb?

To my mind traditional religion, Christianity in particular, is not at all imaginative. It sounds much like a story I myself could have invented when I was ten years old. It's full of spirits, demons, angels and miracles, the very stuff that we kids told spooky stories about.

In contrast, Cosmology is full of stories that I never could have invented. It is about the creation and interaction of particles and energy on a small and a large scale. The beauty of these ideas makes my spine tingle with delight. These theories appear to me to be incredibly imaginative and detailed in a way that the simple pastoral ideas of religion never were.

On a practical level, I'm sure you'd never climb aboard an aircraft that was designed by religious mystics. Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision, or as a result of a prayer to God for the correct specifications. You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.

Jan, my beliefs are not threatened by yours. Hopefully you share this same thought. If you take as much emotional comfort from your religion as I do from science and philosophy then I am pleased for you. Over the future generations I do expect religion to play a lesser role in human beliefs. I am optimistic that over time humans will revert from their present overwhelming belief in their gods, to a belief in their own ability to understand the world.

Best wishes,
Michael

Jan Ardena

01-15-02, 03:07 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by orthogonal
"What is this world?" Emotion cannot provide the answer to this question, only reason can do that.

Are you saying that everything I write on this board is based on emotion?
Reason is a human function as is emotion. I could no more be emotional all the time than be reasonable all the time.
Are you happy all the time, or sad all the time or sometimes happy and sometimes sad???
It is very easy for us to want to be happy all the time, but we have to accept that sadness must be there also.
It is the same with reason and logic. In order to maintain these two states, one has to forfeit ones emotions, where one will inevitably become stale and boring, like Mr. Spock.
The greatest people on the planet, are people who not only show reason and logic, but emotion too.
However, if you are thinking of the character of TV evangelists or of big US presidential speeches, or the Jerry Springer final thought slot, or the Oprah Winfrey show, where you can bet your life on where the applause will fit in and where everybody cries and hugs, then I don’t really regard that as emotion, but sentiment, which is a different thing altogether.
But the truth is, we cannot suppress our emotions for long, no matter who you are, you have to become emotional at some stage, because it is natural.
It is when we have a fine balance, that we start to become fulfilled.

My emotion appears to be particularly suspicious. It simply refuses to accept answers that rely on fables, myths, fairy tales, or otherwise "wishful" thinking.

I wouldn’t use emotion to rely on answers from myths and fairytales, in fact I would be a fool to rely on it for any answers, because I know my emotion can change instantly, without my authorisation.
When it comes to study and meditation, I have to rely on my reason. That way, no matter how I feel, I can understand the reality through knowing.

If a hungry lion approaches me, no matter how comforting the thought might be, my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.

I should hope not.
Have you seen the size of those magnificent beasts teeth and claws.
If your not careful it could have your eye out.

Religion is an affirmation of our hopes and desires. Religion is a device that tells us that the very things we desire are in fact, true.

How have you arrived at this perception?

It tells us that when we die our spirits live on.

Have you ever considered the point that that’s what happens?
If yes, I would like to hear why you discarded it.

It tells us that good shall be rewarded and evil punished.

I don’t think you need religion to tell you that, you can see it in everyday life, that is logic.

It tells us that we are a part of something larger than ourselves. It tells us that life has a purpose.

How else would we know?
That has to be the point of religion, otherwise it would be telling us stuff we already know.

Jan, you and I both feel all these same powerful emotional desires. But with a bit of imagination I might invent an entirely new myth that affirms each of the above desires.

But that’s the point, you can’t, it is not within your capability.
Lets take some great writers and film directors, not only so these people have amazing abilities, but they have unlimited finance to accomplish their goals.
I have yet to see or hear anything which comes close to the Bhagavad Gita spoken by God.

Would you be suspicious that my myth just so happened to affirm every one of your great desires of life?

In order to affirm my desires, you would have to know me, which you don’t. The only other way to even come close, is to brainwash me, thereby keeping my mind stimulated at a certain level, then dictate, over time, by demand and supply, my sense-gratificatory levels, but that needs very long term control which would in time extend to whole countries then societies, through false information, through contaminated food and water, through pharmaceuticals, through the control of narcotics, alcohol, through fear, through unrestricted sex, through dodgy education, all over a very long period of time. And even then you may not sucseed.

To my mind traditional religion, Christianity in particular, is not at all imaginative. It sounds much like a story I myself could have invented when I was ten years old. It's full of spirits, demons, angels and miracles, the very stuff that we kids told spooky stories about.

So what?
It doesn’t mean it’s unbelievable.
When that plane crashed into the wtc, a lot of people expessed their disbelief, even though it happened in front of their eyes.
You should concern yourself with truth, no matter what package it comes in.

The beauty of these ideas makes my spine tingle with delight. These theories appear to me to be incredibly imaginative and detailed in a way that the simple pastoral ideas of religion never were.

They make my spine tingle too. I am not anti modern science, on the contrary, I think there are some wonderful discoveries and inventions, I’ve just taken my curiosity to a higher plane where the tingle is even more extatic.

On a practical level, I'm sure you'd never climb aboard an aircraft that was designed by religious mystics.

Why not?
For all I know I might be boarding planes designed by murderers, peodophiles or even politicians.

Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision…

How do you know that the original design didn’t come in a vision, written down and tested?
After all we understand gravity because an apple fell on a blokes head and damned near knocked him out.

…or as a result of prayer to God for the correct profile and specifications….

Of all aircraft, that would be by far the greatest.

You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.

Then we must understand what science is.
It was on the basis of Charles Darwins, understanding, that Africans were viewed as sub-human and therefore enslaved for four hundred years.
Ooops! What a cock-up, eh!

Jan, my beliefs are not threatened by yours.

I am happy to hear that.

If you take as much emotional comfort from your religion as I do from science and philosophy then I am pleased for you.

I would very much like to get to the stage where I can take emotional comfort from religion, that is why I still study and meditate about and on the Supreme Lord. To take comfort from it would mean I have come to the end of all understanding and have nothing but full faith in God, this is a most difficult procedure in this day and age.
The fact that you take emotional comfort in science, means you have come to the full understanding of you, the universe and you, in relation to the universe, but I fail to see how you could be so knowledgeable without, understanding of the supernatural.
As regard your philosophy, in order to feel comfort, you must defeat all other philosophies with reason and logic. If you don’t then how can you feel emotionally satisfied.
A great philosopher once said. “Philosophy without religion is pure mental speculation, and religion without philosophy is blind faith.”
I understand this to be true, because our senses are limited, our hearing is limited, our sight is limited and so on. Therefore we cannot possibly understand everything. This is why there is religion, we need help.

Over the future generations I do expect religion to play a lesser role in human beliefs.

That’s funny, that is what is predicted in all bona-fide religious script.
So, it looks like God is right after all.

Love

Jan Ardena.

orthogonal

01-18-02, 09:19 AM

Jan,

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response to my earlier posting.

My suggestion that "It's all about emotion" results from my long-standing interest in the way the mind works. I agree with you that the brain is not comparmentalized into the emotional and the rational. There is some rationality in our most heartfelt emotions, likewise, our reason usually bears some vestige of our emotions. Emotion appears to guide actions primarily when we have no time to call up our reason. Sometimes it is useful to act first and think later, but there are times when it is not at all clear what we should do without sitting down and thinking very hard about it. I've recently been wondering if our division of thinking into the emotional and the rational isn't entirely artificial. It's possible that reason is merely emotion expressed at leisure. Two quotes come to mind:

"Reason itself is a matter of faith." G.K. Chesterton

"The heart has reasons which reason knows nothing of." Blaise Pascal

In any case, I'm still reading and working through my ideas on the nature of reason and emotion. I have not yet come to any clear conclusions on the subject.

Your assertion that I don't know you is true in a sense. But it reminds me of the story of two Taoist sages standing on a bridge. The first sage exclaims, "I wish I were a fish; they are so happy!" The second sage replied, "You aren't a fish, so how do you know if they are happy?" The first sage answered, "You are not me, so how do you know whether I know how fish feel?" :)

I don't know you as an individual. But as a human brother or sister I know a good deal about you. With respect to the time scale of human history it was only an eye-blink in the past that you and I shared a common mother. My own joys and fears are fundamentally those of yours. Human emotions are not shrouded in a secret code. It's rather basic; you smile when you feel happy, you scream when in extreme pain, and you grieve when you lose someone you love. I've never known a human to feel differently. One mark of a civilized man is his understanding that the things he feels are probably the things you feel.

In a speech made at a banquet given for Albert Einstein in 1930, George Bernard Shaw said:

"Religion is always right. Religion solves every problem and thereby abolishes problems from the universe... Science is the very opposite. Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without raising ten more problems."

Science tells me up-front that it has no answers to my ultimate questions. If I were the world's most accomplished cosmologist; at the end of the day I'd still have to find my own ultimate answers via philosophy rather than science. Why don't I give up my hard-headed atheism? Why torture myself by insisting that all the little messy details of a theory mesh together in a consistent manner? Why don't I just sing "Hallelujah" along with the 90% of humanity that worship a god? The reason is that religion says nothing to me.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote, "Never speak more clearly than you can think." The authors of religious texts understood this idea. Their texts are a combination of abstract poetry and horoscope that can mean anything and everything to anyone. According to my mood, each time I read a poem the "meaning" might be different. This liveliness is part of the art of poetry. But as art, we don't expect a poem to be either true of false. Religious followers claim their "sacred" poetry can tell us truths about our world and how we should live our lives. A successful religious text is written in obscurely poetic language. As a result, religious proponents eternally argue the over the meaning of their texts. The major religions have long ago broken into various sects, each claiming to hold the correct interpretation. Conversely, scientists strive to write their ideas in the most unambiguous language possible. Scientists from around the world are nearly always in agreement about what a given theory is saying. They might not agree with the theory itself, but they never have to divide themselves into sects which for example, dispute the meaning of Maxwell's equations. A religion which clearly and specifically stated its ideas would be a short lived religion. But how can the veracity of a belief be ascertained if its meaning continually shifts as do the windblown sands of the desert? It is eternally open to interpretation, or re-interpretation.

Giordano Bruno was burned to death in Rome for wondering aloud if space might actually contain thousands of earth-like planets, each swinging around their own sun. Now that we generally accept that his ideas are true, this very same church says that such things are not incompatible with its own teachings. If scientists had made none of their spectacular advances in the last 400 years, I've little doubt the church would today still refute the thoughts of Bruno. Isn't it curious that the meaning of God's absolute word varies with the degree of our advances in scientific understanding? If science is required to clarify the meaning of God's word, then I'm led to wonder why we need God's word at all?

You asked if I've considered that life might be eternal. Yes, of course; I doubt if any thinking being has not wished and wondered if that might be true. Though such speculation belongs to metaphysics rather than to physics; still, it's fun to entertain such ideas.

Consider the idea of multiple universes (the multiverse) for example. Since one universe is possible, it might be that many are possible. In the extreme there might be an infinite number of such universes. An ongoing creation of an infinite number of randomly varying universes would virtually assure that I exist in other universes; possibly at other times in the past and in the future. Some of these other versions of me would have my same experiences and thoughts. Every variation of me imaginable would exist in these other universes. If this idea were true then not only do I currently live in a number of parallel universes, I might have always lived and I will always live, both before and after my life in this present world has ended. But unless the idea of the multiverse were found to be verifiable, it would be silly to elevate it to anything beyond a pleasant speculation. The idea of God is best thought of in exactly same manner; an interesting speculation, but unless the idea could be in some way verified; forever a speculation.

To answer your question directly; no, I currently expect that when I die I will return to the same state of non-being that I experienced, or more precisely stated; I didn't experience, before my birth. In philosophy this is known as the "Two Eternities Argument". I re-discovered it on my own when I was barely out of my teens. But the idea remains as valid now as when it was argued several thousand years ago by the Roman philosopher Seneca:

"Would you not think him an utter fool who wept because he was not alive a thousand years ago? And is he not just as much a fool who weeps because he will not be alive a thousand years from now? It is the same; you will not be, and you were not. Neither of these times belongs to you."

It's a coincidence that you bring up the topic of slavery Jan. This is a big topic with me. Darwin's book, "The Origin Of The Species" nowhere suggests that black men are inferior to white men. I would remind you that slavery is very much alive in parts of Africa today; especially in the Sudan. This article from Macleans Magazine ripped my heart out.

http://www.macleans.ca/xta-asp/storyview.asp?viewtype=search&tpl=search_frame&edate=2000/04/10&vpath=/xta-doc1/2000/04/10/cover/33148.shtml&maxrec=24&recnum=20&searchtype=BASIC&pg=1&rankbase=56&searchstring=slavery

Would you allow a modern black slave trader to employ quotes from the Koran, the Bible, or the Bhagvad-Gita, to justify enslaving their own people? Dishonorable men will clutch at anything in an attempt to justify their wicked behavior.

Regards,
Michael

tony1

01-18-02, 10:11 PM

*Originally posted by Teg
A science book tells me that gravity accellerates objects at 9.8m/s^2. It sounds reasonable and so I drop a mass from the roof of a building. Using a timer and my eyes, I test the theory repeatedly. Confirmation: the accelleration of gravity is approximately 9.8m/s^2 here on earth.*

All that confirms is that that is what you and other people using the same method arrive at as a conclusion.
That method does not identify any exceptions to the number and does not guarantee that gravity will always behave like that.
Therefore the number you arrive at essentially tells you nothing.

*That's a good con. Give me the money and then I shall prove that I have the product. You would have the sense to realize this as a con, so why are you blind when it comes to the bible? You say that proof comes afterward: so where is it? Onviously you believe, so you must have the proof.*

What money?
The gospel is free.

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.
(Isaiah 52:3, KJV).

*How could you possibly confirm this?*

Just using the scientific method.
I know how many books I've read give or take a thousand or so.
I know how fast I read.
I read your posts to determine your level of literacy, and I can conclude that you haven't read very many books compared to me.

*A few specious retorts are insufficient.*

Based on that, I'm supposed to accept false dichotomies?
Riiiiiiiiiiight.

*So then you admit that you hold one book above the other. So then you selectively believe in the laws and ideas of the first book?*

Neither book is "above" the other.
They merely have different functions.
Thus I don't "selectively" believe in the first book; I understand it.

*That has no relevance. For something to last forever is completely different from somethig have an end.*

Thus something with a beginning and no end lasts forever.
What is your point?

*Well, if Jacob is capable of lying, then who else in that book has the capacity?*

An obvious one would be Satan, since he's quoted in the Bible.
Another obvious one would be the lying spirit brought up so often by atheists.

*No, the word with is a direct indication of assistance. "With God" and the Lord was "with" Judah. Your arguments are indeed specious, having the appearence of truth but lacking in factual detail. *

If I'm "with" you to help you, and you decide to do nothing then I am not going to do all the work for you.
Speaking of specious arguments, you're doing quite well in that arena.

*Originally posted by John Como
Although not interested in pissing contests with the blind*

Presumably that means you never get involved in pissing contests.

*Originally posted by orthogonal
my emotion will not let me pretend that the lion is only a lamb, or that there is an invisible force field around me that will keep out the lion.*

Burrrrrrrrp.

*Doubtless, you would worry should you be told that the wing design had come to someone in a vision, or as a result of a prayer to God for the correct specifications. You and I both wouldn't dare trust our lives to a design based on anything less than the scientific method.*

It's obvious that you haven't read many biographies of inventors.

*Science tells me up-front that it has no answers to my ultimate questions.*

What good is it then?

enton

08-17-05, 11:17 PM

enton

08-21-05, 11:47 PM

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?
Cris
For the thread`s answer: No. First you have to signify the word "god" because I being a member of God`s household stick to Bible and there are gods. Sow which god. Now, regarding self. There are people who lived/is living selflessly. So how can I determine what you mean.

Now regarding "belief". Belief is just the first step to know the Creator. Faith is the second. And proof is the final step for your decision.

Assignment for all: Now regarding "delusion." If there are available lexicographers, morphologists, neologists and etymologists in your areas where you live, ask them how come "delusion" if there was never a "deluge" that happened.

After you got the ideas from

1. Lexicographers
2. Morphologists
3. Neologists
4. Etymologists

Then I will reply why I relate "delusion" to "deluge".

cosmicbrat

03-12-06, 11:19 PM

Subject: Religion IS a Drug!..

I explored a presented religious link... It didn't present anything that could modify a Pagan's stance in the "god" topic... All of the presentations were presented to persons who are already embedded in Christianity, thus being significantly religiously conditioned, and anchored.. like a clam stuck to a rock for its duration...
Reading those works was like starting, in the middle of a book...

I gave it a good honest read.. and found that it is full of unsolved questions, that seem to be just clouded and/or"steam rollered over"... with a literary filler, which seems to be included and incorporated, only to force to unrelated values to bind together... which enable high levels of emotion to hide deficiencies in literary attempts to create and establish fact where there is none...
In simpler terms.. It seems the Bible is a mishmash collections of delightful multi-authored, multi-cultured, multi time, multi dimensional prose.. in which unrelated excerpts and packages seem to be connected into a series presentation (book).. by incorporating unrelated fillers between packets.. as if to be the "glue".. to force stories to seem to be a flowing text...

In my research.. I discovered that there is a threefold conditioning applied to the thinking processes of the Christian child.. which hold that child's thinking abilities to a maximum ceiling of 7-percent mind usage...
As the child ages, and the conditioning cures, should that "sheep of the flock".. ever attempt to explore 8-percent mind usage.. the conditioning thereby causes cerebral nerve plumbing to severely constrict, causing what is commonly known as a "migraine"... That being part 1 of the 3 fold conditioning's reaction to the person establishing thought processing beyond the permitted 7-percent thought processing usage......

In 2 of 3.. The person's thought processes are thus shunted into that "individual's" "comedy memory river"... being that person's collection of unsolved comedies, ridiculousnesses, frights, and the like... literally a nightmarish place to be... The person now emergency rushes away from that memory river, like a cat from a burning house... and slams right into a memory wall of dogma.. containing the core shields of the conditioning.. and a gluing effect.. like "flypaper"... The person's thought processing attaches itself to the first dogmatic icon anomaly it can open, and thus begins "rhyming, or preaching, that person's learned facets of that particular piece of dogma... at which time, 3 of 3 comes into play.. the person's bio-morphines system injects a large steady dose of bio-morphines into that person's nervous system... is when the migraine is thus quieted and neutralized... Essentially that person is now stoned on what seems to be "religion's drugs".. actually high on the body's own bio-morphine drugs.. which are probably derivatives of extreme adrenaline processing, in one or more of the body's 18 major glands.. like how we process cocaine out of cocoa leaves... or heroin from is less active cousin... or penicillin from the urine of penicillim mold...
The flow of drugs is now regulated by the steadiness of the flow of that person's active defense of that chosen segment of religious dogma.. and is slowed and/or cut, only when the person ceases religious defensive output, for a duration long enough to acquire an unrelated focus.. I.E.: the phone rings, or a knock at the door.., or the taking a conscious sip of liquid.. etc...
The bio-morphines have relaxed the constricted nerve plumbing, and the migraine subsides...

Is a Christian's anger towards externally sourced blasphemy.. the result of angers in being forced to defend ones belief structures... Or is the anger toward the pain of the conditioning migraine?..

Does the Christian defend dogma to establish a release of bio-morphines... or is it that the Christian actually believes that the dogmas are reality?..

A tangent in this research.. concludes that only Christian person's experience the infamous "overload study headache"... Could this be that they have touched beyond the 8-percent permitted thought processing ceiling of the religious conditioning..?
Could it be that all migraines are thus caused by people trying to think out of the box..?
If yes.. then is it conceivable that Christianity is stifling human evolution.. in order to anchor cultures to History.. to thus prevent change.. because Christianity religion fears that change doesn't include them?..
I determined that only Christians experience overload headaches and migraines...

Deeper into this research.. I discovered that should one who is infected by said conditioning, effect a sudden one liner extreme blasphemous output.. greater than the 7-percent mind usage territory in which the conditioning was likely created.. that the conditioning will thus selfdestruct.. by trying to suicide the person... Thus should a Christian conditioned person have managed to somehow unconsciously block the migraine, or for some reason be numbed from sensing the headache.. and be exploring thought processes beyond the 7-percent permitted ceiling.. for a duration that triggers the person's conditioning to selfdestruct... Is it then conceivable that Suicides are thus a result of religious conditioning gone wrong, out of control.. in having made a mistake.. in killing a person who didn't blaspheme.. but merely accidentally processed thought to long out of the box..?

wayne_92587

03-14-06, 03:23 PM

This post was initially aimed at Taken in the thread “Bye Bye” but I think it is worth pulling it out into a new thread. It can really be directed at most Christians.

What is the distinction between your belief that God is real and a self-delusion that God is real?

Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that God exists you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion. Remember that the strength of your conviction gives no indication of truth or delusion.

You (Taken) have admitted that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God to anyone and that they must find it for themselves. And this is a standard response from all Christians, so I am not just picking on you.

If you cannot show any difference then why should any of us believe that you have found something that we have not?

Delusion: Belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, a misconception, or a mental disorder.

There are no facts or realities that show that a god exists. The pope would be screaming this through every radio and TV if any did show up.

Without your being able to show us your god then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

Cris

Any perception of a Material, Physical God, is a Graven, False, Image of God, is Blasphemy, Hog wash, swill, is an adulteration, a perversion, is a deception, a Lie, an Illusion, of Reality.

You can not perceive of, speak of, give a name to that which has No Name, that is Nameless, faceless, hidden, secret, a sacred thing, something that is not readily apparent, without first carving a Graven, False Image of said reality and impressing it deeply, without tattooing a Named Image, without first fixing an Imagined Image of God in your Mind, which of course, the God that you imagine to exist as a Material, Physical Reality, is a Illusion of Reality, a deception, a lie.

The only Way to believe in the One True God, the Single True Nature, Way,
Spirit of the Universe, The Nameless cause, the indirect cause, of the Heavens and the Earth, is to not submit to, worship, a Carved, any graven image of Reality, the World of Illusion, do not be a Idol worshiper, do not make Materiality your God.

Cris

03-15-06, 03:46 AM

Wayne,

Whether a god is material or immaterial is irrelevant - no one can show that a god of any type exists.

wayne_92587

03-15-06, 05:09 AM

But of course.

It has always been a fact that no man can look upon the Face of God.

You can not prove God exists because God does not exist in the Material sense of the
Word, Exist.

You can not prove God exists because the Reality of God being immaterial, a Spiritual Being, Reality, The Spirit of that which is God, the Single True Nature of the Universe exists in your mind, as your second Nature..

That is the Point your Rational Mind if it is Rational is the Vessel that hold the Spirit of God, is the Holy Grail.

When God breathed What? into man's nostrils, the breath, the Nature, the way, the
Spirit of God was Breathed into Man's nostrils and the Spirit of God became manifest a living Soul, Being, the Spirit of God, the Single True Nature of the Universe, Boundlessness, alive in the Flesh Body of Man.

Freedom Rains.

geeser

03-16-06, 03:35 PM

That is the Point your Rational Mind if it is Rational is the Vessel that hold the Spirit of God, is the Holy Grail. thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

Lerxst

03-16-06, 04:03 PM

it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.

When I was a physics undergraduate I remember getting lots of cheap tickets to the Utah Symphony. It was when I first got a lot of exposure to classical music.

It was not an uncommon occurence for me on a Friday to spend the day at school with my nose buried in a book and chalk on my hands from working problems on a chalkboard. Completely immersed in mathematical thought for hours and hours.

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.

Maybe the religious experience is similar?

I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.

Zappa

03-16-06, 04:16 PM

When I was a physics undergraduate I remember getting lots of cheap tickets to the Utah Symphony. It was when I first got a lot of exposure to classical music.

It was not an uncommon occurence for me on a Friday to spend the day at school with my nose buried in a book and chalk on my hands from working problems on a chalkboard. Completely immersed in mathematical thought for hours and hours.

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.

Maybe the religious experience is similar?

I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.

I think you are correct. The same way that the symphony brought beauty and life to your day, religion brings beauty and life to existence(as it offers meaning and purpose).

emusquire

03-16-06, 05:31 PM

Yes, god is nonsense and people ascribe human characteristics to a mainly inhuman idea. Pathetic :P

geeser

03-16-06, 06:29 PM

Then I would go to the symphony and be literally reduced to tears by a Mahler or Beethoven piece. There was nothing rational or logical in my being emotionally moved by a symphony. It just happens, whether I want it to or not.
Maybe the religious experience is similar?
I don't actually know, I have never had a "religious experience" that was anything like the kind of emotional response that I have had to certain peices of music.when we are born we are but a empty vessel, and during the course of our lifes, we gain experiences, which make us the people we are, unfortunately, as children we are also open to mental child abuse in the form of religious indoctrination, these experiences be they good or bad, make us react to certain stimuli in different individual ways.
you could be right lerxst, but the difference is you know your being irrational in regard to how the music makes you feel.
music make us react, so different. I for instant, love listening to classical also( it make me think of sundays sitting quiet with my family, the ones who have since past on, as well as the living) and popular (make me want to dance) but (c)rap just makes me angry,
but these experiences are all based on things we've sensed.
religion however can never be thought of in the same way, as it has no basis in reality, but the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise.

wayne_92587

03-16-06, 06:34 PM

geeser

03-17-06, 06:01 AM

thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part.
Do you know what it means to rationalize?

Rationalism;
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

If the Rational Mind is not sensible it is not reasonable.

The Rational Mind is lost without any sense, understanding, of materiality,
Reality that exists independent of our thoughts concerning it, Reality that is
readily apparent, measurable.

In order for the mind to be rational, reasonable, it must be sensible.exactly.Being Rational without being reasonable, sensible, is called insanity, loosing touch with Reality, the Material World of Reality that exists independent of our thoughts, our reasoning, rational mind, concerning it.you cant be rational, without reason, only irrational, but I understand, what you saying, so agreed to a degree.The Empiricist, the Materialist, materialism is not concerned with the Immaterial, thats right the objective mind.Realities whose existence depends upon only our thoughts, exactly our subjective mind. our Reasoning ability,
Encarta world dictionary
RATIONALISM:

1. reasoning as basis of action: the belief that thought and action should be governed by reason

2. reason as source of truth: the belief that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge and truth and should be relied on in searching for and testing the truth of things

Compact oxford
RATIONALISM:

the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

Cambridge international
RATIONALISM:

the belief or principle that actions and opinions should be based on reason rather than on emotion or religion.
concerning them, Realities that are not readily apparent, immeasurable, that Immaterial, Spiritual in Nature.the Realitie's in your subjective mind, are solely your personal Realitie's.
Rationality is mankind's salvation, the ability to measure out Realities that are not readily apparent, but Rational Mind without any sense of Materiality, without being sensible, reasonable is Mankind's down fall.this is not possible, not in reality, but however it's a triillion times possible in your subjective mind.
The Five senses, Mankind’s, empirical nature makes man aware of Realities that are readily apparent, measurable, Realities that exist independent of our thoughts concerning them.I've took the liberty of rewriting this to make more sense.
quote
"The Five senses, Mankind's empirical nature makes man aware of the reality thats already apparent, measurable. The realities that exist independent of reality, are solely a produce of our subjective mind.Man Sixth Sense, thine Single Eye, this is where you lose it again, what sixth sense there is none.the Rational Mind, the Mind's Eye helpss Mankind to measure our, to make man, he and she aware of Realities that are not readily apparent, sensible, Realities that we not even know exist if it were not for the Rational, Reasoning Mind, the Knowledge of Realities that exists only because of our thoughts concerning them, Realities that are immaterial in Nature, Spiritual Realities.no thats not the rational mind, thats the subjective mind, the rational mind is the objective mind.
however we do need the two minds, as we would never of had any musicians artist etc.
but it's knowing where the lines drawn, so you dont cross over into madness.
many a genius is bordering on madness, case in point "the beautiful mind:russell crow"

lerxst: I said this in my last post, " the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise."
a case in point is the very post I've just replied too.

Lerxst

03-17-06, 08:48 AM

when we are born we are but a empty vessel, and during the course of our lifes, we gain experiences, which make us the people we are, unfortunately, as children we are also open to mental child abuse in the form of religious indoctrination, these experiences be they good or bad, make us react to certain stimuli in different individual ways.
you could be right lerxst, but the difference is you know your being irrational in regard to how the music makes you feel.
music make us react, so different. I for instant, love listening to classical also( it make me think of sundays sitting quiet with my family, the ones who have since past on, as well as the living) and popular (make me want to dance) but (c)rap just makes me angry,
but these experiences are all based on things we've sensed.
religion however can never be thought of in the same way, as it has no basis in reality, but the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise.

I agree with the empty vessel bit, I endured a lot of garbage being dumped into mine as a child. I also agree that the religious belief is irrational. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if the religious feeling stems from something deep and emotional and seemingly inexplicable, as does the resonance with music, then I can at least kind of imagine why a believer doesn't care if it is irrational or not - the experience is so profound that it trumps reason.

That's just speculation, of course. I'm really interested in trying to understand the origins of the religious feeling. I think it's probably rather complex.

(I also agree with you that (c)rap is utter crap.)

duendy

03-17-06, 09:17 AM

I agree with the empty vessel bit, I endured a lot of garbage being dumped into mine as a child. I also agree that the religious belief is irrational. I guess the point I was trying to make is that if the religious feeling stems from something deep and emotional and seemingly inexplicable, as does the resonance with music, then I can at least kind of imagine why a believer doesn't care if it is irrational or not - the experience is so profound that it trumps reason.

That's just speculation, of course. I'm really interested in trying to understand the origins of the religious feeling. I think it's probably rather complex.

(I also agree with you that (c)rap is utter crap.)

the origins of the religious feeling? can i recommend you checkout this book, Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda: Patriarchy and the Drug War, by Dan Russell ISBN 0-9650253-1-4

a hint. what do you actually feel about te psychedelic issue?....witout being disrespectful,i am SSUMING you propbably have negative views about all abot it---tat it is illegal, harful, distorting reality, subversive, ...etc?

well i am asserting that theoriginal religious inspiration WASvia psychedelic sacraments

why?

This goes back right to the beginnings, and till continues wit some remainging Indigenos peoples. where they will communally partake of a psychedelic sacrament

what this ritual does is inspire deep feelings, and memory 'mnemosyne'

of?

of primal re-member-ences in actual NOw, of our deep interelated union with Nature and community

now, when tis becomes oppressed, suppressed, repressed due to mindsets which seek control. then this memory is lost and al that remains is disconnected EMOTION--we ARE emotional beings--and tis very emotion is THE manipulated by he oppressive manipulatprs/the State........
ie., onto their idea of a 'God' who is separate and demands sacrifice/renunciation

NOW the 'masses' emotions are hitched onto consumerist IMAGES (because images go deep,obviously and are very powerful) which unconsciously make people buy what they dont need, believe in stupid corrupt politicians, and carry on un-feelingly to destruction of environment, for 'profit'!

wayne_92587

03-17-06, 12:33 PM

You said nothing of what it means to rationalize.

I am glad that you have responded to my post and sorry to here that this is your last, this is an important subject; being of Two Minds, duplicitous, guilefulness, feminine wile, Duality, irrationality, the use of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Rationalization, as the basis for your Reality, the Knowledge of Evil, the Major cause of all suffering.

If that was your last post so be it, whatever it takes to float your boat.

As far as using your, Spiritual, Rational, Mind verses your Empirical Mind, you need them both, but you can not float your boat, ark, vessel, on rock hard, solid, ground, Empiricism, water being a Reality that is not rock hard is symbolic of a Spiritual Reality.

Flooding covering with water, Baptism, is symbolic of the Holy Ark, a Spiritual Arch, Covering, protection.

Arch;
1. playfully roguish or mischievous: an arch smile.
2. cunning; crafty; sly.
3. Obs. a person who is preeminent; a chief.

Perhaps Holy Arch, Ark, the Holy Grail is a Vessel that holds your Spirituality,
Guilefulness, Freedom of Will, Wile, your conscious desire to be a Free Spirit,
your desire to be playfully roguish, mischievous.

Keeper of the Holy Grail----------->O

wayne_92587

03-17-06, 12:55 PM

Notice that --------------->O is an Empty Vessel.

geeser

03-17-06, 03:48 PM

You said nothing of what it means to rationalize.I take it this part is directed to me so I'll answer this part, to rationalize is something the religious know implicitly, it's what they do everytime there faith is questioned, however it does and will always fall on the deaf ears, of the clear/freethinker.
as I stated on two occasions "the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise."

I am glad that you have responded to my post and sorry to here that this is your last, this is an important subject; being of Two Minds, duplicitous, guilefulness, feminine wile, Duality, irrationality, the use of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Rationalization, as the basis for your Reality, the Knowledge of Evil, the Major cause of all suffering.

If that was your last post so be it, whatever it takes to float your boat.

As far as using your, Spiritual, Rational, Mind verses your Empirical Mind, you need them both, but you can not float your boat, ark, vessel, on rock hard, solid, ground, Empiricism, water being a Reality that is not rock hard is symbolic of a Spiritual Reality.

Flooding covering with water, Baptism, is symbolic of the Holy Ark, a Spiritual Arch, Covering, protection.

Arch;
1. playfully roguish or mischievous: an arch smile.
2. cunning; crafty; sly.
3. Obs. a person who is preeminent; a chief.

Perhaps Holy Arch, Ark, the Holy Grail is a Vessel that holds your Spirituality,
Guilefulness, Freedom of Will, Wile, your conscious desire to be a Free Spirit,
your desire to be playfully roguish, mischievous.

Keeper of the Holy Grail----------->Oas for all this I dont know who your talking to or what your talking about.

Godless

03-18-06, 01:09 AM

*as for all this I dont know who your talking to or what your talking about.

I'd bet that's why they call it babble ;) bla,bla,bla and really nothing said.

wayne_92587

03-18-06, 02:00 AM

I take it this part is directed to me so I'll answer this part, to rationalize is something the religious know implicitly, it's what they do everytime there faith is questioned, however it does and will always fall on the deaf ears, of the clear/freethinker.
as I stated on two occasions "the religious will defend this irrationality to the death, and never admit it's irrational, even though they must realise."

as for all this I dont know who your talking to or what your talking about.

Yes this reply is for you, thank you again for your response.

I will try to find your post that I was replying to an do it again so that my post will make sense.

cosmicbrat

10-27-07, 08:21 PM

Quoting: "That is the Point your Rational Mind if it is Rational is the Vessel that hold the Spirit of God, is the Holy Grail."

_________________

Quoting: "Thats when you lost it.when you tried to combine rational mindedness with spirituality.
this is a contradiction in terms, the two are mutually exclusive, you cannot be both rational and spiritual, well not at the same time. it's strange that the religious can be rational in every other aspect of their lives, except the religious/spiritual part."

_________________

The proverbial "grail" is you accessing your sorcerer's energy package, and incorporating it into your Being, in the junction-zone between your mind and spirit... just as "the fountain of youth" is cosmic-physical, plus tri-level attitude adjustment from present modes of human thought processings, into reality... just as all the great powers, are waiting to be awakened from deep slumber, for you to breathe life into, for Life to have breathed Life's greater aspects into you...

Humanity fears these words.. because they are pulled from thought processing beyond religion's self-imposed 8% mind usage ceiling condition...
They may have dealt a blow to humanity.. but they sank in the same boat.. and are as stuck in the muck as they hold humanity in religion's satanic grasp...

By the way... I just love you two's deep-mind literary work...
You make me feel like I'm not alone in the world...

cosmicbrat

03-15-08, 01:39 AM

This message for Donald J, from DonaldJ...

Greetings other Donald..

I'm wondering how you feel about the part of Life that money can't manipulate in any way..?

I'm seeing it as we are spending the whole world for money...
It seems that money is in control, spending us...
I.E.: One wealthy person could pay a million poor mindless folk, to literally fetch all the skins from all the animals on the planet... oops...

It seems the origin of money.. was the evolutionary alternative to forever shoveling-up after the, meat, fruit, bird, and goat offerings, all became too-ripe to be near, and to ignore, for miles around... Religion's money-invention worked... and as an unexpected plus.. helped fund religion providing her two greatest enemies a roof under its thumb...

Now days it seems that money doesn't truly have a definition of Life in its equation...
For the pursuit of acquiring more and more money, there is less and less life on this planet by the second.. "the great falling" is upon us... If it doesn't change, the planet will eventually run out of life at this rate... What year do you suppose is the best year, for all of us to up and say, The planet has lost enough life.. it's time to start treating our home like we respect Life, unless it's already too late..? Maybe the disasters is the life support systems collapsing..?

I'm seeing it that we have only 145-thousand years left as life on this planet...
If we continue at the present rate of planetary destruction, she won't be able to support the life of a single hardy beetle by the year 155,000...

I stumbled upon bit of delicious time-travel technology...
Near the year 145,730, I watched the last human cracking the marrow out of the bones of the second last... We are destroying humanity's home, for money... Some are abusing money... Some respect it... There's more abusers than respecters... We can't win the big life game anymore.. We win only the lifeless little games...

In this time-travel trip I saw there is the potential of 33-million more years of human life on planet earth... On the return, I recorded disaster upon disaster.. mostly man made... Then is when I bumped into a little activity, near the year 145,730.. and paused to spectate the horror I saw then... It's there for all to see.. all anyone needs is a few pointers on how that part of the mind works...

It seems that humanity had 33-million years remaining.. but spent all but 145 thousand years of it, abusing money and the planet and each other...
Seems what we did to the planet in the past 300-years has deleted 33-million years of human births... That's a lot of humans we cleansed and sold-out for profit...
There's enough treasure circulating on this planet, to ensure all 6-bil a good life...
Something is wrong...
We need to extinct money before it extincts us...

cosmicbrat

03-15-08, 01:41 AM

Quote: "when we are born we are but a empty vessel,"

I happen to know for a fact that we are birthed with a full mind... It's just that being born into this restricted original fantasy leaches it out if us... We die running-on empty...

Quote: "as children we are also open to mental child abuse in the form of religious indoctrination,"

They drain our fullness, and consume our spirits as meals... We see only hell's religious facade...

Quote: "the religious will defend this irrationality to the death"

Religion has put the brakes on evolution, by suppressing new and change.. because religions fears that there isn't a place for religion in the future, unless it eliminates the future...

Lori_7

03-15-08, 03:00 PM

Lori_7

03-15-08, 03:12 PM

See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you’re on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your head
And it’s all
Right where it belongs

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems
What if all the world you think know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is that all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself—find yourself afraid to see?

What if all the world’s inside of your head
Just creations of your own?
Your devils and your gods all the living and the dead
And you’re really all alone
You can live in this illusion
You can choose to believe
You keep looking but you can’t find the woods
While you’re hiding in the trees

What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems
What if all the world you used to know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is that all you want to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself—find yourself afraid to see?

NIN With Teeth 2005 (yum)

visceral_instinct

03-15-08, 04:16 PM

[QUOTE=tony1;72191Without an external independent objective mechanism to show that science is valid you will have no way to know that your belief is not self-delusion.

Without your being able to show us that the scientific method proves what it is purporting to prove then our only rational conclusion is that you have been deceived into believing what you do, or you have misunderstood reality, or you are mentally ill.

[/QUOTE]

The scientific method does prove what it purports to prove.

If I hypothesize that if I ram my head on the wall, I will be knocked unconscious, then I test that by ramming my head on the wall and being knocked unconscious, I should think I have the right to say that my hypothesis was correct.

cosmicbrat

03-15-08, 11:25 PM

Quote: "you could make this same point about anything."

It was made about the fact that belief in a god is belief in a money-scam's money-sucking conjob fantasy...
Not the other and anythings.. only in reference to christinsanity's scam...

Quote: "Go to church? I am the church!"

You've taken the christinsanity too far, into becoming a disease...
Do you think you'll soon be needing a fresh coat paint..?

The church is merely the gaudy brass-leafed physical front-door of the religious scam, pretending to be the fag master's gateway to heaven for the christinsane mindless masses... for religion to maintain itself from the scammed flows of money, scammed from the mindless poor, all born into religion's slavery program... They know nothing else... They are born into the original insanity ("original sin") within the machinery insanity...

Quote: "See the animal in his cage that you built"...

Religion is in itself a cage for those who have absolutely no grasp on any reality...
Trouble is, they haven't been caged enough, and they are permitted to run free in the ranks of the sane, within cultures, when they should be grouped, and reconditioned, and/or youthenized for the good of the existence and evolution of the family of man, and life on and of the planet...

Quote: "What if all the world you think know is an elaborate dream?"

...with all the frightening parts covered in a coating of religious fanatical fantasy, to make the scary parts seem to have gone away... like in how the first monkey who "sees no evil", has made all the evil suddenly "vanish", by having covered its eyes with its hands... "peekaboo I see you"...
"Would you find yourself—find yourself afraid to see yourself?"...

Does the mirror lie..?

Twisted Quote: "Without actual proof that god is valid you cannot know your belief is self-delusion, or truth."

Religious Science still hasn't proved the existence of a god...
Religion's only proof, is in hereditary blind faith...

It's obvious that Man created god in his own image...
Your gods have all your personality traits... Only your traits... Seems your gods don't possess any godly traits...

It seems god creation started back about 2000-years ago.. by Joseph's father and grandfather.. Joseph of Aramafia, Mary's studly... Joey got the babe pregnant, and since the law and government's solution to excess teen births was to have all unwed mothers immediately stoned to death in the square... Mary cried out, "God stuck it to me!".. and she was saved... Hell no!.. She ran away, and hid in a nearby town, and slept with the cows and chickens...

Joe's grandfather, a skilled fiction writer, invented "virgin birth", to save his daughter inlaw from the flying-stones, and invented "god", to quell the violence and crime of the unruly parentless teens of the time, by providing them with a surrogate father figure...

That's the ticket... Show the world the process in how to create a god.. then they will see how easily their god was created by the fiction writers of the time, a couple thou years ago...

First you need a reason to create a god...

2000-years ago parents died around the age of 35, from extremely poor conditions, and nearly no good health practices.. another reason to incorporate healthy living in folklore.. as the bible was designed to do, in the 700's...

2000-years ago kids were left parentless to fend for themselves, at about the age of 15... They were poor, filthy, nasty, out of control, hungry, cold, wanton, and in gangs.. stealing anything and everything to survive.. clothing, food, money.. and doing violence to get it.. same as today...

A great thinker would see that the turmoil was because kids were out there on their own, trying to survive without parental guidance... The government would see killing them as the quickest easiest viable solution... Chopping off hands would work for some, if they could catch them... Chopping off heads would be more final, and cheaper... Making criminals into slaves would be a solution... Ship them off in chains to construction sites and road building, far away from urban centers...

The next recourse would have to be to supply them with a surrogate parent... Thus a father figure god would have been created in their minds to give them something to look up too...
A figure they couldn't harm, nor rob... It would need be close enough to their senses for them to feel there with them at night when they sleep...
It would need be all knowing... It would need be their best friend... It would need be something they could communicate with.. or that could be communicated with via a mediator...

Detail how someone in the dark ages would and could create a god...

I've been and seen beyond space, matter, and time, in my several near death accidents, and I never found a god there... All I found is human abilities that go beyond the accepted norms...
I've toured the next four layers of the afterlife, and still found no trace of gods...
Talking the existence of gods is totally insane.. so much so that you begin to even hate yourself and the Life around you, and that shows in how we disrespect the planet so much, and in how we are destroying its fragile balances.. rather, in how we've destroyed its fragile balances... Our home's life-support systems are collapsing, self destructing, and still there is no god to repair it, nor even slow it a little...

How the hell can you propose to know anything about a god, in being but a tiny bug on this little silly little ball of floating, circling, spiraling space rock, destined to one day be but a meal for the sun..?
All you are doing in professing a god's existence, qualities, and physics, is combining all what you deem impossible, inaccessible, unattainable, unexplainable, and irrational, and attaching it all to your fictitious god, to make it inaccessible, intangible, and impervious to any scrutiny, which is you attaching labels and meaning to the void, to make you feel you are not so alone and insignificant...
If there was a god, I would expect it to be so much a part of us that it would show in everything happening in our lives... We do all what we do ourselves without a god, atheists and christians too.. we do it by living life as best we can...

If humanity had a god, we wouldn't be so into building hell on earth from having dismantled heaven on earth for the building materials... and we wouldn't be slaughtering our fellow humans, to rob their dope and oil, and to convert them to our imaginary god's ways by force of the inquisition process... If we had a god, we would have global love... Your professing the existence of a god is nauseating to those of us who have open functioning minds, and believe only in ourselves...

You should check it out... Just for a minute, live your life without your imaginary god... You won't fall off the end of a flat world.. You won't suddenly fall to pieces.. You won't suddenly die.. nothing will change, except you will suddenly be totally responsible for you... though you might sustain a sudden migraine, for your religious conditioning constricting your cerebral nerve plumbing to prevent you from denying the programing to be forced to tithe so that lazy parasites can maintain luxury living at your life's expense...

Empty yourself of religious dogma, and you will notice powerful new abilities coming alive within you... Your professing a god, is essentially your responding to your conditioned designer fears of what you are, and fears of what you could do if you were ever to permit you to fully be you... You fear Life so much that you try desperately to make me, us, and them, want to fear Life too as you do... In professing a god, you are acting as a vile contagious disease in-process of trying to spread itself...

I stroll into the forest not fearing it, but loving and respecting it... Little creatures approach me to touch me, and permit me to touch them... I approach large meat eaters, in trust and friendship, and sit a few feet from them... Life feels my love, and loves me right back... If a large cat or bear came anywhere's near you, you would instantly mess yourself... If a robin, in a quiet forest, made a noise near you in rustling fallen leaves, whilst searching for food, you may well fire a bullet at the noises the robin makes, and/or suddenly break into a cold-sweat, and bolt and run...
A large dragonfly flies close by me, and I says an excited "Hi".. and it decelerates, circles me, and lands on my face... A black widow spider raises its leg when I bump it gently with my finger to get it to walk onto my hand... If you came even close to a black widow you would probably either crush the life out of it, and/or get stung... If a huge dragon fly came anywheres near you, you would probably slap it dead, or squish the life out of it, in blind disabling fear of it... I am an "atheist".. I love Life, I care for all Life, and Life loves me...
You are a "christian".. You christians fear Life, you wrong to Life, Life doesn't like you...

Prove your god exists!.. Show me one tiny particle or shred of proof that it's real.. besides professing your blind faith that something imaginary exists for you, and for all those like you who have been conditioned to accept as real that which is not...

As much belief that you put into your illusionary god, is as much life-energy that you fail to put into your life and living.. and when it gets down to the wire, you discover that all that god bullshit was just that, just bullshit...
A couple seconds into death all the lies fall away, and you are left with not even a prayer... nothing to do but recycle...

Put 100% into your god belief, and you would be dead in less than a week.. and very messy and smelly too...

You believe there's a god because you were born into an insane culture that believes there's a god... same as if you were born in to a culture that all walked on fours.. you would be walking on all fours...

Just because crazies jump off cliffs is no reason to jump off the cliff...

You who believe in a god are just a mindless follower, a numb puppet, a senseless robot, and blind lamb of the flock of religion's perpetual meal...

Believe in yourself...

If it was a god's way kind of religion, it wouldn't need defending... it would be embraced by all life without question... Your religion and gods need constant defending, because everyone knows it's crap at best...

You crazies enter forums professing your dogmas, only to attract a teacher and mentor who will help you out of your insanities, by proving to you that your vile belief structure is just that, insanity... Deep inside your Being knows all that religion dogma is absolute crap... You are desperate for some help out of it, so you can get on with your lives... You profess your lies to attract truthful correction, but your religious conditioning forces you to fight the truth... Essentially there is no help nor hope for you.. you are caught up in a perpetual cycle of self-destruction.. and your treatments of the planet and its living things proves it...

Here's your proof your god exists...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=proof+god+exists&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

It starts with:

"The Strong Modified Weak Anthropic Principles: Scientific Proof there is a Creator.

The Anthropic Principles point out that there be over a 100 variables to this Universe which would have made life as we know it impossible. If they were even slightly different, either this Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible, or there have to be googolplexes of Universes.

Consider the following analogy.

If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk... blah blah blah..."

That's your Best so called proof your imaginary god exists in other than your dreams and wishes...

It's all just gibberish, to smoke screen the topic away from the truth... All your proof is just you crazies coating your lies with more and more bullshit... "Googleplexes of universes".. HaH!.. you twits can't think that far nor deep... You don't even know if there is a universe... You twits can't prove the existence of a god, therefore you try to throw-off the topic by spewing forth tons of everything that isn't a god... Your only proof is that you wish and hope there is a god, so all your investment in religion won't be just a big waste of time and life and money... Can't help you there.. you've already wasted your whole life believing that bullshit is a god.. you sillies...

_______

http://timelessfaith.blogspot.com/

Just maybe it's that the Evangelists are so much conditioned into abolishing sin, that they are unconsciously in process of "erasing All Sin off the planet" by meticulously murdering the whole human race..? In all the world's Media it seems to be their style... Seems that Christianity has lost it, and doesn't anymore realize that we are the Life.. and believes that if we aren't money, then we deserve to be dead... I calls it "ChristInsanity"... I sees it as being "The Evils of Religion"... Since Christianity began, all it has done is label everything about humanity "evil".. and it is Christianity that does the evil vile stuff that hurts all Life... It sure does seem that Christianity is hellbent on destroying all of us... Maybe it's time to put Christianity to sleep... It hasn't worked for over 2000-years.. in that all it has done is start wars, and stifle and murder humans, and try to force those who don't believe in it, to believe in it, or be tortured and murdered by those who profess the benefits of "god's love"...

_______

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=evangelism+to+abolish+sin+&btnG=Search&meta=

_______

I found this abomination, out there in Internet land, when searching Evangelism insanities...

"...Hell is after all, the final expression of God's hatred. God does hate the reprobate sinner in a very real and terrifying sense.

I would never say such a thing were it not clearly taught in Scripture. Psalm 5:5-6 says, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost HATE all who do iniquity. Thou dost destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord abhors the man of bloodshed and deceit." Psalm 11:5 says, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul HATES."

The psalmist himself reflects the divine attitude when he writes, "Do I not HATE those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost HATRED; they have become my enemies" (Ps. 139:21-22).

As we have noted previously, this is not a malevolent hatred; it is a holy abhorrence for that which is vile, loathsome, and evil. But it is TRUE HATRED nonetheless."

I nearly threw-up, after reading that...

_________

It seems that Christianity is just like the Arab religions.. but worse..

_________

I am a believer of Life... I am not an atheist, nor do I take stock in any thing religious... I see religious stuff all life-stifling at best... "Atheist" is a religious term for those who refuse to accept any religious dogma... I am not religious, and I do not even accept any of your silly labels... Labels are only ways to describe something for those who need things explained.. labels are in themselves only restrictive...

I see how religion forces itself upon those who would have a better life without any religion... I watched religion destroy my family, and hundreds of their families... I experienced how easily religion destroyed my life... I see how religion is in process of destroying our planet and us, starting with everyone who refuses to believe in that crap...

Religion is merely an attempted detailed speculative description of a few idiot's explanation for the ways things are... None of it is provable.. You all were born into it, so you know nothing else... Religion makes you into haters of all those different from you...

Too many of your religious leaders are molesting our babies, to get their righteous rocks off.. and sometimes they even murder our children to hide the evidence of their evil doings... One palace, of a christian group, there were discovered hundreds of skeletons of kids those beasts raped, murdered, and ate...

I fail to see any value in christianity... All I see in it is evil... And I know should a christian effect a strong blasphemy, one that verges in thought processing of the like that the religious dogmas were created.. that the religious conditioning core in that person's creative center will self destruct, in trying to suicide that person for attempting to eliminate their bonds to dogmatic mass insanity...

I see you religious folk going hunting, killing innocent forest creatures just because you can.. for "fun & sport"... While I go out into the forests, and talk to the animals, and have them approach me, and touch me... You crazies claim you hunt to feed the family... Well! with an annual income of over a hundred grand you don't need to kill our forest creatures for anything... Leave them alive for those of us who love them...

Now day your crazy christian wars are pitting christians against Arab religions.. protecting those who accept christianity.. and slaughtering those who refuse to believe your insanity... This war is "The Inquisition" reborn... The Spanish did the same to the South American Peoples... They slaughtered non-believers, raped their children, and stole all their gold.. leaving their cities in ruins...
Christian America is slaughtering non-believers, raping their children, and stealing their oil.. leaving their cities in ruins...

American soldiers kneel and pray to their effigies of their gods.. then go out and slaughter more Innocents...

USA!.. This is our world! NOT yours... And our lives have nothing to do with your ridiculous gods, which are but a figment of your imaginations... Christianity is essentially just a pile of hooga-booga...
And the weird part is that people like you actually believe in that crap...
The sad part is that you try to run all our lives with that insanity...
The pitiful part is that your religious leaders haven't the slightest clue how to effect the afterlife, nor how it works, though you pay them your hard earned cash to let them guide you to a heaven that is non-existent... They only tell you they know, but they never show any proof, they can't, they don't have any... You accept their bullshit blindly and numbly, whilst your religion drags you mindless Beings down hell's gullet...

You'll see it clearly for a couple seconds, after your body has expired, and you don't know what to do, except to reach in any and every direction for your imaginary god, to discover it isn't... Your particles will use up all their "fuel", disseminated, and ran out of momentum, lost out in deep space.. to be only food for the fauna there... Essentially your christianity is hell's gaping mouth, hell's facade...

Check it out... Reach for your god now... What did you find..?

On the other hand.. Reach for Life... What do you find..?

________

I'm wondering how you feel about the part of Life that money can't manipulate in any way..?

I'm seeing it as we are spending the whole world for money...
It seems that money is in control, spending us...
I.E.: One wealthy person could pay a million poor mindless folk, to literally fetch all the skins from all the animals on the planet... oops...

It seems the origin of money.. was the evolutionary alternative to forever shoveling-up after the, meat, fruit, bird, and goat offerings, all became too-ripe to be near, and to ignore, for miles around... Religion's money-invention worked... and as an unexpected plus.. helped fund religion providing her two greatest enemies a roof under its thumb...

Now days it seems that money doesn't truly have a definition of Life in its equation...
For the pursuit of acquiring more and more money, there is less and less life on this planet by the second.. "the great falling" is upon us... If it doesn't change, the planet will eventually run out of life at this rate... What year do you suppose is the best year, for all of us to up and say, The planet has lost enough life.. it's time to start treating our home like we respect Life, unless it's already too late..? Maybe the disasters is the life support systems collapsing..?

I'm seeing it that we have only 145-thousand years left as life on this planet...
If we continue at the present rate of planetary destruction, she won't be able to support the life of a single hardy beetle by the year 155,000...

I stumbled upon bit of delicious time-travel technology...
Near the year 145,730, I watched the last human cracking the marrow out of the bones of the second last... We are destroying humanity's home, for money... Some are abusing money... Some respect it... There's more abusers than respecters... We can't win the big life game anymore.. We win only the lifeless little games...

In this time-travel trip I saw there is the potential of 33-million more years of human life on planet earth... On the return, I recorded disaster upon disaster.. mostly man made... Then is when I bumped into a little activity, near the year 145,730.. and paused to spectate the horror I saw then... It's there for all to see.. all anyone needs is a few pointers on how that part of the mind works...

It seems that humanity had 33-million years remaining.. but spent all but 145 thousand years of it, abusing money and the planet and each other...
Seems what we did to the planet in the past 300-years has deleted 33-million years of human births... That's a lot of humans we cleansed and sold-out for profit...
There's enough treasure circulating on this planet, to ensure all 6-bil a good life...
Something is wrong...
We need to extinct christinsanity's money before religion's wars extinct us...

Lori_7

03-16-08, 01:41 AM

cosmicbrat,

it seems that you don't have very good depth perception. you can't see past anything.

if you remain fixated on the institution, then you're no better than they are, and you allow them to win. at least where you're concerned.

don't do that. (just my suggestion, not a mandate of any sort.) peace.

cosmicbrat

03-18-08, 03:15 AM

I posses so much depth perception that I am able to heal others just by touching them... I am able to hypnotize seawater with a six-layered focus, which makes a square mile of turbulent ocean coastline be as calm as glass is smooth for as long as I maintain the multi-focus... I am able to approach a large wild hungry grizzly bear, in total safety, and sit a few feet from it, and employ verbalizations and telepathy to teach it to speak rough English...
Wild animals approach me and touch me... Birds, and venomous insects, will land or crawl onto my hands, in total friendship and respect, at my request... I possess a depth in perception greater than any other human has ever accessed... I see the truth as it is...

Your silly post was just for you... Your post was merely you looking into the mirror, and describing yourself, just as all your output is you defending the insane fantasy you are mired in... You were born into it, and you can't see anything but the "smoke"... You see the ridiculousness that you are, and you try to stick it on others, to attempt to escape it... That's insane at best...
I'll bet that you believe aliens are coming to take you to a better planet.. is you forsaking earth, life, and realty, to live your dying dream and wish, to be somewhere better than in this crazy christinsanity hell on earth...
You were born into christinsanity slavery's "original-sin", and know nothing else... Your headache upon reading my words is merely your invasive religious conditioning causing cerebral nerve plumbing to constrict... Begin reciting aloud any dogma you are well versed in, and you will notice the migraine vanish, from the religious conditioning having triggered a quantity of your body's internal bio-morphines into your blood stream... You will thus be "stoned" on your body's own painkillers... "Praise god!" cries out the mindless christian... Your religious conditioning permits you to utilize only 7% of your mind... Try to use 8%, and you will suffer a migraine, is why new science breakthrough discoveries cause christians serious headaches... Your religion stifles life... Your religion restricts you from accessing the 87% more reality there is... Your religion is Insanity at its peak...

You seem to not be able to grasp, that your boss fagot, "Jesus", died for his own sins, after he tried to coupe the Roman government... The only demons and devils we have on this earth are Christianity, and those like you, forever chewing-on the lives of those they've conned into believing all that silly crap they and you preach, essentially only to rob our money, so your bunch of mindless lazy fat-fags can live in luxury, without needing to do any honest work. You only preach a big hell, and you are in it as deep as it gets... You are a victim of evil... Essentially you are hell's acting preacher, desperately trying to spread your vile Christianity cancerous mental disease to those who aren't yet affected and afflicted by your hell's kitchen religion. Your religion is hell's face, desperate for more innocent souls to feed upon, and you are the acting purveyor of more tasty souls for hell's cancerous stomach.

Most of your pious righteous religious leaders, popes, bishops, priests, ministers.. very much enjoy having warm testicles resting upon their chins, whilst they suck the "seminarial" fluids out of each other, and out of the kiddies they molest... Your whole Christian religion is just one big worldwide fag's freeforall, perpetual wine and cheese party, at the expense of the mindless, the insane, and the poor, and you are just one of their Pimps. Your Christian religions are essentially just blood-sucking, life-sucking, semen-sucking, parasites, feeding off of humanity like blood lusting insatiably thirsty vampires in perpetual feeding mode... Your Jesus died for his own sins, and you are spreading the glorious evils of hell on earth, in preaching and teaching the mindless that death is better than life.. which is definitely "insanity".. and is why humanity has lost all respect for humanity and life...
Your religions have labeled all the good in humanity as bad.. and has replaced all the good of humanity with a great insatiable hunger for more and more money...
Our money is to drive our own lives.. not for fanatics, scammers, and cons, to live freely off of...
Our blood is in us for us, not in us for Christian preachers to feed it to their Christian vampire masters...
Your religions don't have the first clue how to effect the afterlife, nor how to navigate it...

Provide just one real honest shred of actual proof that your god exists!.. just one...

cosmicbrat

03-22-08, 01:08 PM

Quote: "but the problem at the root of it all is not Christianity, but Capitalism."

_____________

Look at it in a scientific set of view-points...
Look at it logically... Christianity invented the present Money System, to prevent the accumulating vile stench of decaying tithing produce and animal dung in the fronts of temples...
Money is Christianity... Capitalism is Money... Today's government is Money... Christianity owns the money people's minds... Most of the free-world is mired-in, and conditioned with Christianity's mind programming, making it not as free as they think... Should a person who is Christian conditioned begin to process thought using more than 7% mind, that person will suddenly experience a migraine headache... And should that person then commence verbalizing (preaching) a Christian dogma, the headache will vanish, from the conditioning triggering a quantity of that person's internal bio-anesthetics into the nervous system...
Prove it to yourselves... Image you are doing something extremely vile to one of your Christian heroes... When the headache gets to be real strong, do the preaching the dogma thing, and notice that you suddenly gets a good shot of your body's internal drugs, which cools the conditioning's painful constricted nerve plumbing... Money is all about manipulating people with pain and rewards... It's all related to Christianity maintaining its hold on Innocents.. so much so, that sometimes religious leaders have been known to even blatantly attack and molest and rob the innocence of babies, by sexually molesting them just to get their pious righteous Christian-rocks off, like a Roman Catholic priest molested me when I was three months old...

We abuse and misuse Money... Most of the criminal element is money-based...
Governments are horribly infested with money-sucking criminals, parasitizing the masses for more and more money... Look at Bush's MO... I bet that guys Karma is gonna come back at him in the form of the worst cancers one could imagine... You can't escape Life's balancing factors... All the evil you do comes back at you when you are weak, and can defend yourself the least... Money has become the evil, in how we use it... But now Money has taken on a life of its own, and is now in process of spending all life, to make itself grow... Money doesn't have a definition of life in its equation... Money doesn't care if it spends all life... Money only wants to grow and grow itself, by spending more and more life... Today the increasing oil prices are boosting the transportation costs of everything, which is increasing the cost of everything, essentially spending more life, by literally spending the quality of life or humanity... Big Money doesn't care if humanity lives or dies... Look what's happening in Arabia... Big Money America is using a reborn Christian Inquisition, and their Christian military war machine, to attack and rob the little poppy & oil rich nations who can defend themselves the least... Money's war is is just one way money plays... America is robbing Arabia's dope and oil to make American economy grow... Economy is Money...

Without Money, Religion dies.. Governments die.. Crime dies.. War dies.. All that remains is Life...

How did the planet build the dinosaur ages without money..?
How does the Sun maintain Life without money..?
How does a blade of grass grow without money..?
How does winter succumb to Spring without money..?
How does conception happen without money..?
How can Life continue, with money destroying the very life support systems which nurtures and cradles all life..?
How will you get to your "heaven" with money..? Who, and what, do you pay for your entry into your proverbial "heaven"..?

Christianity = Capitalism = Money = Religion = Politics = War = Crime = Evil... It's all about Money... All the strife on the planet is money-based...

Humanity is heading head first into an early extinction, and are taking all life on the planet with us... Each second there is less and less life on the planet... One day planet earth is gonna run out of life if this foolishness continues... It's all about how a few thousand of us, in control, are abusing money... It's a vile disease... It's called "Gold Fever"... All the infected one can see is money and profit... Life has become a trivial pursuit...

I was coining-out a PacMan video-game in a Jewish community center, and was being watched by four little Jewish boys... The moment I began pouring the thousands of quarters into the coin-counter, two of the little Jewish boys began drooling... So profuse was their drooling that it as falling from their chins in long gooey strings, landing on the tops of their shoes in puddles... Seeing that made me feel extremely nauseous...

If I won a huge multi-million dollar lotto, suddenly I would have lots of friends...

Money is Christianity... Capitalism is Money... Today's government is Money... Christianity owns the money people's minds... Most of the free-world is mired-in, and conditioned with Christianity's mind programming, making it not as free as they think... Should a person who is Christian conditioned begin to process thought using more than 7% mind, that person will suddenly experience a migraine headache... And should that person then commence verbalizing (preaching) a Christian dogma, the headache will vanish, from the conditioning triggering a quantity of that person's internal bio-anesthetics into the nervous system...
Prove it to yourselves... Image you are doing something extremely vile to one of your Christian heroes... When the headache gets to be real strong, do the preaching the dogma thing, and notice that you suddenly gets a good shot of your body's internal drugs, which cools the conditioning's painful constricted nerve plumbing... Money is all about manipulating people with pain and rewards... It's all related to Christianity maintaining its hold on Innocents...

You can use this thing as a useful pain-elimination tool, to eliminate serious pain...
Next time you are in extreme pain, image yourself doing some extreme blasphemy.. then when the migraine gets strong start preaching a little Christian dogma, and all your pain will vanish the moment your invasive Christian conditioning releases a significant quantity of your body's bio-anesthetics into your nervous system...

Next time you are experiencing extreme fear, do the blasphemy thing, and then the preaching the dogma thing, and all your fears will vanish...

Next time you need to fight to protect yourself, do the exercise, and there's a good chance that should you sustain any damage in the battle, you won't feel any pain...

Should you happen to experience a study overload headache, that's because you are accessing more than the permitted 7% of your mind to cram for exams...
Set the books down, and start preaching a little Christian dogma, and the headache will suddenly vanish... Only Christian conditioned people get migraines and overload study headaches...

Better would be to totally eliminate the conditioning, once and for all.. unless you find that it's a good pain-relieving tool...
To eradicate the conditioning from your Being is quite simple... Get high on what ever you like to get to get high on... Get relaxed as you can... Place an unopened bottled beverage just out of reach... Go into deep a meditative state, where it's easy to visualize your thoughts... Image picking up the bottle, and grabbing the Nazarene ("christ") by the back of his gold-sash ("belt"), and with all your might yank him backwards toward you, having him buckle-over forward.. and Ram the bottle cap through his toga, right up into his arse, while yelling in your mind "TIGHTEN UP!", and image yourself snapping the base of the bottle down, lightning-fast, snapping the cap off the bottle in the guy's bum... Then grin proud, and image yourself taking a refreshing-sip from the bottle...
Suddenly your conditioning will react in the extreme, in defending itself against your extreme hit.. which was based beyond the thought-processing which invented and created the conditioning... Thus the conditioning will now see that it has no-option but to suicide you, to protect itself from you possibly assisting others out of its vile mind prison... You will sense an increasing heat generating in your head, in the creative center, in the right brain hemisphere, top center.. then you will experience a couple of stingy audible crackles in the creative center.. is when you immediately cut all power to your thought processes, and the conditioning will safely self-destruct...
In a few minutes the stings will vanish, and your thoughts will suddenly fill-up with millions of new thoughts about the workings of Life and Reality and Science, and if you're lucky you'll see the gates to the afterlife too...
You have now freed yourself from the great abomination's insanity...
Now your life is all yours to do with as You please, unhindered by invasive money-sucking mind-controls... And no more migraines...

Use your religious conditioning as a pain-relieving tool... or eliminate the invasive pain at its source by neutralizing the mind control conditioning...

Lori_7

03-23-08, 09:10 PM

(Q)

03-24-08, 10:28 AM

i'm not religious, and i have all the proof i need in abundance. where's yours?

One of the most ridiculous things you've said thus far. Of course you're religious, by definition. You believe in a supernatural being.

cosmicbrat

03-26-08, 09:43 AM

Look at it in a scientific set of view-points...
Look at it logically... Christianity invented the present Money System, to prevent the accumulating vile stench of decaying tithing produce and animal dung in the fronts of temples...
Money is Christianity... Capitalism is Money... Today's government is Money, All three love your money much more than they care about you... Christianity owns the money people's minds... Most of the free-world is mired-in, and conditioned with Christianity's mind programming, making it not as free as they think... Should a person who is Christian conditioned begin to process thought using more than 7% mind, that person will suddenly experience a migraine headache... And should that person then commence verbalizing (preaching) a Christian dogma, the headache will vanish, from the conditioning triggering a quantity of that person's internal bio-anesthetics into the nervous system...
Prove it to yourselves... Image you are doing something extremely vile to one of your Christian heroes... When the headache gets to be real strong, do the preaching the dogma thing, and notice that you suddenly gets a good shot of your body's internal drugs, which cools the conditioning's painful constricted nerve plumbing... Money is all about manipulating people with pain and rewards... It's all related to Christianity maintaining its hold on Innocents.. so much so, that sometimes religious leaders have been known to even blatantly attack and molest and rob the innocence of babies, by sexually molesting them just to get their pious righteous Christian-rocks off, like a Roman Catholic priest molested me when I was three months old...

We abuse and misuse Money... Most of the criminal element is money-based...
Governments are horribly infested with money-sucking criminals, parasitizing the masses for more and more money... Look at Bush's MO... I bet that guys Karma is gonna come back at him in the form of the worst cancers one could imagine... You can't escape Life's balancing factors... All the evil you do comes back at you when you are weak, and can defend yourself the least... Money has become the evil, in how we use it... But now Money has taken on a life of its own, and is now in process of spending all life, to make itself grow... Money doesn't have a definition of life in its equation... Money doesn't care if it spends all life... Money only wants to grow and grow itself, by spending more and more life... Today the increasing oil prices are boosting the transportation costs of everything, which is increasing the cost of everything, essentially spending more life, by literally spending the quality of life or humanity... Big Money doesn't care if humanity lives or dies... Look what's happening in Arabia... Big Money America is using a reborn Christian Inquisition, and their Christian military war machine to attack and rob the little poppy & oil rich nations who can defend themselves the least... Money's war is is just one way money plays... America is robbing Arabia's dope and oil to make American economy grow... Economy is Money...

Without Money, Religion dies.. Governments die.. Crime dies.. War dies.. All that remains is Life...

How did the planet build the dinosaur ages without money..?
How does the Sun maintain Life without money..?
How does a blade of grass grow without money..?
How does winter succumb to Spring without money..?
How does conception happen without money..?
How can Life continue, with money destroying the very life support systems which nurtures and cradles all life..?
How will you get to your "heaven" with money..? Who, and what, do you pay for your entry into your proverbial "heaven"..?

Christianity = Capitalism = Money = Religion = Politics = War = Crime = Evil... It's all about Money... All the strife on the planet is money-based...

Humanity is heading head first into an early extinction, and are taking all life on the planet with us... Each second there is less and less life on the planet... One day planet earth is gonna run out of life if this foolishness continues... It's all about how a few thousand of us, in control, are abusing money... It's a vile disease... It's called "Gold Fever"... All the infected one can see is money and profit... Life has become a trivial pursuit... Add to that vile greed disease, "God Fever".. and you've got a species hellbent on destroying their planet as fast and hard as they can, for god and money...

I was coining-out a PacMan video-game in a Jewish community center, and was being watched by four little Jewish boys... The moment I began pouring the thousands of quarters into the coin-counter, two of the little Jewish boys began drooling... So profuse was their drooling that it as falling from their chins in long gooey strings, landing on the tops of their shoes in puddles... Seeing that made me feel extremely nauseous...

If I won a huge multi-million dollar lotto, suddenly I would have lots of friends...

Money is Christianity... Capitalism is Money... Today's government is Money... Christianity owns the money people's minds... Most of the free-world is mired-in, and conditioned with Christianity's mind programming, making it not as free as they think... Should a person who is Christian conditioned begin to process thought using more than 7% mind, that person will suddenly experience a migraine headache... And should that person then commence verbalizing (preaching) a Christian dogma, the headache will vanish, from the conditioning triggering a quantity of that person's internal bio-anesthetics into the nervous system...
Prove it to yourselves... Image you are doing something extremely vile to one of your Christian heroes... When the headache gets to be real strong, do the preaching the dogma thing, and notice that you suddenly gets a good shot of your body's internal drugs, which cools the conditioning's painful constricted nerve plumbing... Money is all about manipulating people with pain and rewards... It's all related to Christianity maintaining its hold on Innocents...

______

You can use this religious conditioning thing as a useful pain-elimination tool, to eliminate serious pain...
Next time you are in extreme pain, image yourself doing some extreme blasphemy.. then when the migraine gets strong start preaching a little Christian dogma, and all your pain will vanish the moment your invasive Christian conditioning releases a significant quantity of your body's bio-anesthetics into your nervous system...

Next time you are experiencing extreme fear, do the blasphemy thing, and then the preaching the dogma thing, and all your fears will vanish...

Next time you need to fight to protect yourself, do the exercise, and there's a good chance that should you sustain any damage in the battle, you won't feel any pain...

Should you happen to experience a study overload headache, that's because you are accessing more than the permitted 7% of your mind to cram for exams...
Set the books down, and start preaching a little Christian dogma, and the headache will suddenly vanish... Only Christian conditioned people get migraines and overload study headaches...

Better would be to totally eliminate the conditioning, once and for all.. unless you find that it's a good pain-relieving tool...
To eradicate the conditioning from your Being is quite simple... Get high on what ever you like to get to get high on... Get relaxed as you can... Place an unopened bottled beverage just out of reach... Go into deep a meditative state, where it's easy to visualize your thoughts... Image picking up the bottle, and grabbing the Nazarene ("Christ") by the back of his gold-sash ("belt"), and with all your might yank him backwards toward you, having him buckle-over forward.. and Ram the bottle cap through his toga, right up into his arse, while yelling in your mind "TIGHTEN UP!", and image yourself snapping the base of the bottle down, lightning-fast, snapping the cap off the bottle in the guy's bum... Then grin proud, and image yourself taking a refreshing-sip from the bottle...
Suddenly your conditioning will react in the extreme, in defending itself against your extreme hit.. which was based beyond the thought-processing which invented and created the conditioning... Thus the conditioning will now see that it has no-option but to suicide you, to protect itself from you possibly assisting others out of its vile mind prison... You will sense an increasing heat generating in your head, in the creative center, in the right brain hemisphere, top center.. then you will experience a couple of stingy audible crackles in the creative center.. is when you immediately cut all power to your thought processes, and the conditioning will safely self-destruct...
In a few minutes the stings will vanish, and your thoughts will suddenly fill-up with millions of new thoughts about the workings of Life and Reality and Science, and if you're lucky you'll see the gates to the afterlife too...
You have now freed yourself from the great abomination's insanity...
Now your life is all yours to do with as You please, unhindered by invasive money-sucking mind-controls... And no more migraines...

Use your religious conditioning as a pain-relieving tool... or eliminate the invasive pain at its source by neutralizing the mind control conditioning...

cosmicbrat

03-26-08, 11:08 AM

I just finished sending this to every website in the first five pages of a Google search for "migraines"... Now, the the big-shots will research it with all their means.. which means that I have just mobilized the world's medical community to prove the Christianity is a disease...

I sent them this..

"Cause and cure to "migraines"...

Money is Christianity... Capitalism is Money... Today's government is Money... Christianity owns the money people's minds... Most of the free-world is mired-in, and conditioned with Christianity's mind programming, making it not as free as they think... Should a person who is Christian conditioned begin to process thought using more than 7% mind, that person will suddenly experience a migraine headache... And should that person then commence verbalizing (preaching) a Christian dogma, the headache will vanish, from the conditioning triggering a quantity of that person's internal bio-anesthetics into the nervous system...
Prove it to yourselves... Image you are doing something extremely vile to one of your Christian heroes... When the headache gets to be real strong, do the preaching the dogma thing, and notice that you suddenly gets a good shot of your body's internal drugs, which cools the conditioning's painful constricted nerve plumbing... Money is all about manipulating people with pain and rewards... It's all related to Christianity maintaining its hold on Innocents...

______

You can use this religious conditioning thing as a useful pain-elimination tool, to eliminate serious pain...
Next time you are in extreme pain, image yourself doing some extreme blasphemy.. then when the migraine gets strong start preaching a little Christian dogma, and all your pain will vanish the moment your invasive Christian conditioning releases a significant quantity of your body's bio-anesthetics into your nervous system...

Next time you are experiencing extreme fear, do the blasphemy thing, and then the preaching the dogma thing, and all your fears will vanish...

Next time you need to fight to protect yourself, do the exercise, and there's a good chance that should you sustain any damage in the battle, you won't feel any pain...

Should you happen to experience a study overload headache, that's because you are accessing more than the permitted 7% of your mind to cram for exams...
Set the books down, and start preaching a little Christian dogma, and the headache will suddenly vanish... Only Christian conditioned people get migraines and overload study headaches...

Better would be to totally eliminate the conditioning, once and for all.. unless you find that it's a good pain-relieving tool...
To eradicate the conditioning from your Being is quite simple... Get high on what ever you like to get to get high on... Get relaxed as you can... Place an unopened bottled beverage just out of reach... Go into deep a meditative state, where it's easy to visualize your thoughts... Image picking up the bottle, and grabbing the Nazarene ("Christ") by the back of his gold-sash ("belt"), and with all your might yank him backwards toward you, having him buckle-over forward.. and Ram the bottle cap through his toga, right up into his arse, while yelling in your mind "TIGHTEN UP!", and image yourself snapping the base of the bottle down, lightning-fast, snapping the cap off the bottle in the guy's bum... Then grin proud, and image yourself taking a refreshing-sip from the bottle...
Suddenly your conditioning will react in the extreme, in defending itself against your extreme hit.. which was based beyond the thought-processing which invented and created the conditioning... Thus the conditioning will now see that it has no-option but to suicide you, to protect itself from you possibly assisting others out of its vile mind prison... You will sense an increasing heat generating in your head, in the creative center, in the right brain hemisphere, top center.. then you will experience a couple of stingy audible crackles in the creative center.. is when you immediately cut all power to your thought processes, and the conditioning will safely self-destruct...
In a few minutes the stings will vanish, and your thoughts will suddenly fill-up with millions of new thoughts about the workings of Life and Reality and Science, and if you're lucky you'll see the gates to the afterlife too...
You have now freed yourself from the great abomination's insanity...
Now your life is all yours to do with as You please, unhindered by invasive money-sucking mind-controls... And no more migraines...

Use your religious conditioning as a pain-relieving tool... or eliminate the invasive pain at its source by neutralizing the mind control conditioning..."

________

I'm sure there will be a hell of a Lot of flack over it, given that it will rock the boat Bigtime, but after all the smoke and sparks clear, the Christian religion disease will be on its way out, flushed out of humanity like the great turd it is... We will be free from the mass insanity, free to learn to love and live together in peace, free to restore this planet back to a livable state, free from America's Inquisition wars, free to live Life...

spidergoat

03-26-08, 01:00 PM

cosmicbrat

03-27-08, 10:39 PM

Our present money system is not supported by Christianity. It clearly doesn't allow usury (interest). That is why this useful task was given to Jewish people, a practice that has earned them hatred ever since.

Christianity, and all the religions own a lot of land, property, and businesses, all around the world.. all such holdings are based upon money, profit, and usery-interest, at the expense of all the living...
The only historical reference to Christianity "not allowing usery" is the one isolated story, of "the Nazarene throwing a temper-tantrum in chasing money changers from a temple"...

Todays religions are money based, and totally money dependent.. Religion's conditioning controls are deep the heads of most of those who control the human race's big money.. thus religion controls the money world...
The money world, under religion's guidance, is selling out all life for profit... Religion's Gold-Fever is spending all the life on the planet... Religion's God-Fever is hiding the truth... Two related terminal mental diseases, which will soon be our end...

John99

03-27-08, 10:48 PM

I just finished sending this to every website in the first five pages of a Google search for "migraines"...

Well that is a waste of bandwidth.

Just people who work hard seem to have more money.

cosmicbrat

03-28-08, 05:05 AM

Essentially what you are in process of, obviously is to initiate a "silent-coupe flame war" here, in this thread, in defending your belief structure from the truth I share in exposing the evils of Christianity... I sense your plan is to have my handle added to the huge list of banned handles...
If I were to explore the archives of this forum, would I find that most of those good thinkers who were banned, were banned only after You initiated flame wars with them, and after they rightfully defended themselves from your incessant meticulous growing attacks..?

In response to your last post..
Those who work hard, day after day after pay, pay most of their earnings to the parasite class of humans, in tithes, taxed taxes, fines, rents, unreasonably high prices, and interests upon interests... They have next to nothing, but little holes in the jugulars, a nice box to live in, wide-screen teevees, plastic ming vases on brass leafed pedestals, ford sports-cars, aluminum boats, big phony smiles when they exit their clubs on Saturdays and their churches on Sundays, structured 9 to 5's, zero true respect, zero dignity, zero love, zero reality, zero clues... Just some money, and a dream, and a big debt...
They grade their life levels by counting their money, and comparing their quantities to that of others...
I have no money, therefore I do not exist...
You have twice as much money as I don't, therefore you exist half as much as I don't...

Destroying your Christian mind-control cerebral-conditioning gives you the feel that you've just crawled out of Christianity's hell... Why would you even want to defend a wrong?..

If you are into learning more new science, then neutralize your religious conditioning, and take a look see for yourself, if you can get through the initial migraine... Let your god go, for at last a minute, and you will notice absolutely no change, no difference... because your god is a none existent...

Have you noticed, when you try to comprehend something beyond your grasp to fathom, that you ends up with a migraine..? Why do you put up with what be causing those headaches..? Take the cure now... Free yourself from hell's gullet/religion's face...

laladopi

03-30-08, 09:25 PM

is believing in love a delusion as well cris?
wheres the proof of love? or any emotion for that matter?
because we all dont express emotions in the same way?
so who are you to say that the belief in a higher power is a delusion

cosmicbrat

04-03-08, 02:44 AM

The topic is: the fact that religion is fallacy.. not that there are undefinable things other than religion.. and not that you are incapable of understanding love and emotion, and probably have never experienced passion...
The topic is not about defining love and emotion.. not about how do you know that you have a pancreas..? not about how do you know that tiny detonations makes your car run?.. nor how do you know the stork doesn't deliver human babies?.. nor how do you know that uranium is radioactive?.. nor how do you now that cell-phones bake brain-tissues?.. nor how do you know that cocaine abuse melts brain-tissues?.. nor how do you know that alcohol abuse dehydrates skin?.. nor any of the other trillion things that a god is not... (that was a "smokescreen")...

Your claim of "proof of a god" is: "because we all dont express emotions in the same way? so who are you to say that the belief in a higher power is a delusion"...

Hell! we all don't see trees in the same way, nor wood in the same way.. To a carpenter, wood is an art medium... To the weekend fisherman, wood is fuel for his campfire... To the village idiot, wood is all the slivers in his bum from his attempt to slide down a rotting banister railing in a condemned mansion...
We all have our distinct opinions and definitions about pretty much everything general...

Your proof god exists is similar to the "proof" I find in a Google search: "proof god exists"... http://www.proofgodexists.org/
http://www.proofgodexists.org/anthropic_principle.htm

In that, their proof of a god is: "there are over one hundred variables to the Universe, which would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different." and "If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think naturally, "someone dropped a quarter." If you went down the street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, "Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters." But if you went down the street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think somebody did this deliberately." blah blah blah...

Their claims, and your claim, are absolute gibberish...
How people express emotions does not determine the existence nor non-existence of anything... How many quarters you find on the street has nothing to do with anything, but that there were imaginary quarters to be found on that imaginary street... "Anthropic Principles".. nothing but horse-shit!.. Their "proof a god exists", essentially only disproves the existence of a god...

You provide just one tiny bit of proof that god is real.. just one... Pulease! just one...

Agreed there are higher powers, but there is not a supreme authority over the many great powers, sources, and forces... There are higher powers for sure.. even I am a much higher power than you, and I am a nothing in the eyes of humanity... What does that make you...

Just you try to make any sense of: "because we all dont express emotions in the same way? so who are you to say that the belief in a higher power is a delusion"...
That's generally how god believers defend their position... They cast non-related gibberish, or "smoke screen", into the discussion.. expecting to derail the topic... Well it won't work here, because I will bring it right back to what you couldn't comprehend, and to what you felt the need to smoke-screen away in the first place...

That gibberish stuff you toss into a discussion is the same goop that the two European kings, back in the 700's, employed to glue non-related stories together in assembling the first Christian bible.. which they printed up, and distributed, and commanded all their subjects read and learn under penalty of death...
You are stuck in an old story book, combo health manual book, which is main lessons are: "to try to live as healthy as you can", and that "heaven and earth don't want assholes"...
Learn those two crucial lessons, then toss the book, and get into some life while you still have breath and beat and heat...

Destroying your Christian mind-control cerebral-conditioning gives you the feel that you've just crawled out of Christianity's Hell, a feeling like finally you got most of the cowpoo off of your shoe, in the field, in doing the infamous cowpoo-dance.. a human leaving a huge streak of cowpoo in the grasses and weeds...
Why would you even want to defend a wrong?..

If you are into learning more new science, then neutralize your religious conditioning, and take a look-see for yourself, if you can get through the initial migraine...
Let your god go, for at least a minute, and you will notice absolutely no change, no difference... because your god is none-existent...

Have you noticed, when you try to comprehend something beyond your grasp to fathom, that you ends up with a migraine..?
Why do you put up with what be causing those headaches..? Take the cure now... Free yourself from hell's gullet/religion's face.. destroy your religious conditioning... Free yourself from hell's gullet/religion's face... Your "god" is none-existent...

Why do you pray in hell?..

Cris

04-03-08, 03:55 AM

laladopi,

is believing in love a delusion as well cris?
wheres the proof of love? or any emotion for that matter?
because we all dont express emotions in the same way?
so who are you to say that the belief in a higher power is a delusionThere is no doubt that emotions exist since we all experience them. These are factual human characteristics. Nothing similar can be said for the existence of gods.

Norsefire

04-03-08, 09:03 PM

This thread is titled "Is belief in a god just self-delusion?"

The amusing thing, to me, about that is that..........how the hell do you expect anyone to know?

superluminal

04-03-08, 09:18 PM

We all know. Even "believers". Else they wouldn't call it belief. They'd call it fact. It's a complete delusion. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity knows it.

Norsefire

04-03-08, 09:24 PM

We all know. Even "believers". Else they wouldn't call it belief. They'd call it fact. It's a complete delusion. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity knows it.

Ah, so you've died before.........I see.

superluminal

04-03-08, 09:28 PM

Ah, so you've died before.........I see.
Ha! You're one of those I see. Couldn't possibly come to any rational conclusions about things without experiencing them first hand, right? Need to die to be sure there's no "afterlife" right? You should now go throw yourself off a bridge to prove to yourself my assertion that gravity will kill you under such circumstances. Have fun with that.

Norsefire

04-04-08, 12:12 AM

Ha! You're one of those I see. Couldn't possibly come to any rational conclusions about things without experiencing them first hand, right? Need to die to be sure there's no "afterlife" right? You should now go throw yourself off a bridge to prove to yourself my assertion that gravity will kill you under such circumstances. Have fun with that.

Considering such a thing as figuring out if there is an afterlife REQUIRES one to die, it would be silly to begin making assumptions before any sort of first-hand experience.......well, then it's too late.

My point is, nobody knows and no one will know 'till they are dead, so don't act like you DO know.

superluminal

04-05-08, 07:24 PM

Considering such a thing as figuring out if there is an afterlife REQUIRES one to die, it would be silly to begin making assumptions before any sort of first-hand experience.......well, then it's too late.

My point is, nobody knows and no one will know 'till they are dead, so don't act like you DO know.

Oh come on. Fine. Just like I'm not quite sure there aren't purple cephalopods living unter the sands of Mars, I'm not quite sure there's no afterlife.

Sheesh. Are you a theist? An atheist? What are you?

Norsefire

04-05-08, 07:35 PM

Oh come on. Fine. Just like I'm not quite sure there aren't purple cephalopods living unter the sands of Mars, I'm not quite sure there's no afterlife.

Sheesh. Are you a theist? An atheist? What are you?

We can search mars.........we can go and search the underground and figure that out: it relies on the physical world

The difference with the supernatural is that nobody CAN say if it does exist or it doesn't, because it's beyond our senses, beyond what we can comprehend, and it is beyond our physical universe.

I am agnostic, sometimes theist.

superluminal

04-05-08, 07:45 PM

We can search mars.........we can go and search the underground and figure that out: it relies on the physical world

The difference with the supernatural is that nobody CAN say if it does exist or it doesn't, because it's beyond our senses, beyond what we can comprehend, and it is beyond our physical universe.

I am agnostic, sometimes theist.
Good. Then whay say ANYTHING at all about something that can never be percieved or impact our physical universe? Theists just blow my mind.

I can't see it
I can't prove it
I can't understand it
I can't touch it
I have the word of some ancient texts that read like read like a childs nightmare bedtime story

Yep. Good enough for me. I BELIEVE! Yay!

Norsefire

04-05-08, 08:54 PM

Good. Then whay say ANYTHING at all about something that can never be percieved or impact our physical universe? Theists just blow my mind.

I never said impact, I simply said that we [Humans] are not capable of sensing that which is supernatural, therefore we can not make any sort of claim as to whether it exists or not.

Also, that is partly what I am saying! Theists and atheists alike cannot say there is no God or that there is a God, because it is impossible to know! The concept of God is BEYOND our physical universe, unlike saying the thing you said about mars.

Perhaps a specific entity (God), but God as a whole is not implausible as a concept. God, in the sense of, an entity which created our universe.

[/QUOTE]

superluminal

04-05-08, 10:22 PM

Perhaps a specific entity (God), but God as a whole is not implausible as a concept. God, in the sense of, an entity which created our universe.

I think the concept is entirely implausable. Why? Because the question at the bottom of any such idea is always "who or what created the creator?". This is an infinite form of begging the question. It is entirely plausible that the universe is exactly what we percieve it to be - a purely natural occurance. Possibly one in an infinity of such occurrancs. To posit an intelligence as the source of such a thing is no more plausible than positing hyper-intelligent bunnies as the bringers of baskets of chocolate eggs (and even more disturbingly, chocolate representations of themselves).

No. All gods are, when you blow away the thin smoke of human fear, simple projections of our psyches on a cold and completely indifferent cosmos.

cosmicbrat

04-06-08, 04:24 AM

Quote: "Ah, so you've died before.........I see."

Does seven NED's count..?

I experienced 7 near death accidents, in which I consciously explored death... There is no god there...

Thing is, You can learn how to access and negotiate the afterlife from this life, while alive... If you don't spend 20-years learning how the afterlife works, and how to work it, while you have breath and beat and heat, then what will you do when it's time to jettison the body..? One second into death is not the time to commence 20-years crucial lessons...

cosmicbrat

04-06-08, 04:29 AM

Norsefire

Kindly provide one tiny bit of realistic honest factual proof that god exists... just one...

________

Would you kindly explain the physics of the "water into wine" incident...

(Q)

04-06-08, 10:14 AM

I never said impact, I simply said that we [Humans] are not capable of sensing that which is supernatural, therefore we can not make any sort of claim as to whether it exists or not.

Yet, theists will go on and on and on about the existence of their gods. They may in fact bet their lives on it, or yours. :D

Also, that is partly what I am saying! Theists and atheists alike cannot say there is no God or that there is a God, because it is impossible to know! The concept of God is BEYOND our physical universe, unlike saying the thing you said about mars.

NO! Strictly speaking, theists cannot say there is a god, based entirely on YOUR logic.

Do you see the hypocrisy of it all?

Norsefire

04-06-08, 11:59 AM

Yet, theists will go on and on and on about the existence of their gods. They may in fact bet their lives on it, or yours. :D
That would be a belief.

NO! Strictly speaking, theists cannot say there is a god, based entirely on YOUR logic.

Do you see the hypocrisy of it all?

I know........that is what I am saying, nobody on Earth knows of anything beyond what they can sense, so it would be unwise to make assumptions; until we die, there's no way to know.

Norsefire

04-06-08, 12:00 PM

I think the concept is entirely implausable. Why? Because the question at the bottom of any such idea is always "who or what created the creator?". This is an infinite form of begging the question. It is entirely plausible that the universe is exactly what we percieve it to be - a purely natural occurance. Possibly one in an infinity of such occurrancs. To posit an intelligence as the source of such a thing is no more plausible than positing hyper-intelligent bunnies as the bringers of baskets of chocolate eggs (and even more disturbingly, chocolate representations of themselves).

No. All gods are, when you blow away the thin smoke of human fear, simple projections of our psyches on a cold and completely indifferent cosmos.

True, but the concept of natural occurances is no less ridiculous than the concept of intelligent creation.

Besides, I've explained to you already, nobody can know if there is any greater intelligence beyond what we can perceive.

Norsefire

04-06-08, 12:04 PM

Norsefire

Kindly provide one tiny bit of realistic honest factual proof that god exists... just one...

________

Would you kindly explain the physics of the "water into wine" incident...

The "water into wine" occurance depends on the existence of God: therefore, if it actually did happen, God is real.

Now, I am neither saying it did nor that it didn't; I wasn't alive at the time, so I won't make assumptions.

And as for "proof"............again, do you not understand? There are two issues with this

1) Likewise as a theist cannot provide proof for the existence of God, an atheist cannot disprove it no matter what

2) Keep in mind the concept of God involves a supernatural force, and therefore would be impossible to prove (or disprove) in our natural, physical, world.

(Q)

04-06-08, 01:03 PM

That would be a belief.

A belief we could all do without, as history would attest.

I know........that is what I am saying, nobody on Earth knows of anything beyond what they can sense, so it would be unwise to make assumptions; until we die, there's no way to know.

Yes, so let's place all those silly ideals of gods firmly on the shelf of myths and move on with what's really important to mankind.

Norsefire

04-06-08, 01:10 PM

A belief we could all do without, as history would attest.

Are you sure? Again, this all depends on if there is a God.

Besides, religion has provided much for the growth and expansion of society, as well as massive effects upon it. Without it, we would be like the cavemen still, in terms of cultural development.

Yes, so let's place all those silly ideals of gods firmly on the shelf of myths and move on with what's really important to mankind.

But you do not know if they are myths; I mean, certainly if you go into specifics and all these stories and nonsense and books, yes, but as for the core concept itself (an intelligent entity beyond Human perception), I see nothing ridiculous about that concept.

And what is important to mankind? I've already explained that I feel a decline in any form of faith would lead to a money-obsessed form (as is being demonstrated now) as well as a lack of any sense of morality, tradition, duty, and honor

Not that faith is necessary to posess those things, but it regulates them, and without it they can all go down the drain.

No, a moderate form of faith enhances society; definetely much more so than no faith whatsoever, as if you look around, many things (including holidays, traditions, celebrations, feasts, national and governmental aspects, and even the Calendar!) all trace back to faith.

(Q)

04-06-08, 01:34 PM

Are you sure? Again, this all depends on if there is a God.

Besides, religion has provided much for the growth and expansion of society, as well as massive effects upon it. Without it, we would be like the cavemen still, in terms of cultural development.

That is intellectual dishonesty and you know it.

But you do not know if they are myths; I mean, certainly if you go into specifics and all these stories and nonsense and books, yes, but as for the core concept itself (an intelligent entity beyond Human perception), I see nothing ridiculous about that concept.

Then, you are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

And what is important to mankind? I've already explained that I feel a decline in any form of faith would lead to a money-obsessed form (as is being demonstrated now) as well as a lack of any sense of morality, tradition, duty, and honor

Not that faith is necessary to posess those things, but it regulates them, and without it they can all go down the drain.

Again, complete intellectual dishonesty.

No, a moderate form of faith enhances society; definetely much more so than no faith whatsoever, as if you look around, many things (including holidays, traditions, celebrations, feasts, national and governmental aspects, and even the Calendar!) all trace back to faith.

So what? Is your support for the fantastic and mystical the fact that societies celebrate holidays that support the fantastic and mystical?

cosmicbrat

04-08-08, 01:56 AM

The "water into wine" occurance depends on the existence of God: therefore, if it actually did happen, God is real.

Now, I am neither saying it did nor that it didn't; I wasn't alive at the time, so I won't make assumptions.

And as for "proof"............again, do you not understand? There are two issues with this

1) Likewise as a theist cannot provide proof for the existence of God, an atheist cannot disprove it no matter what

2) Keep in mind the concept of God involves a supernatural force, and therefore would be impossible to prove (or disprove) in our natural, physical, world.

Then how is it that your god supposedly can answer physical prayers in the physical..? Why do you pray?..

Picture this.. A fag party a couple thou years ago... The host, has his cuddle-buds bring out a prime jug of wine, that his scroungers managed to rob from a wealthy carpet dealer's home... In the jug, a ladle of water is carefully suspended... The party trick is to pour out a glass of water, then do an "oogabooga-alakazam" over the jug, and pull out a fine ladle of better wine than the first jug... The average mindless drunk would see the trick as magic, and that's how he would tell his story...

cosmicbrat

04-08-08, 09:42 AM

Do you pray?..

I know not "pray"..? How does prayer work..?
I understand that one establishes a subservient posture, then recites little poems, generally without any attitude nor clue as to what they are doing...
What are ones focuses and directives when praying..?

This scientist wants to understand the values of prayer, to determine if praying holds any value.. what's prayer's physical and metaphysical properties, in order that I may determine that the "Bible Path", that a billion people are on, is everything Life can be, and is for me..?

What is the physics of a successful prayer compared to that of a non-successful prayer..?
What makes a prayer successful..?
How does one know the prayer is doing something..?
Why do you pray..?

I think the praying world needs to be seriously awakened to raw passion and pure love within...
Maybe people need be forced to let love out of the box...
Maybe people need be taught to love all life, or teach them how to die...
Me thinks only UnLife can hate anything in Life.. therefore hate is probably essentially only varying degrees of death and hell...
Maybe Christians who share any hate are essentially sharing their proverbial hell..?
Maybe Christians are actually building their great proverbial hell on earth, to teach us a lesson that their belief system holds some validity, and to punish nonbelievers for not believing and not tithing, so a progressive perpetual groups of fags can live the luxury life at the expense of the peasant's life support..?

It seems that only those who claim to be Christians are the ones who share hate with those who don't believe in their belief structure... like in how today the Americans are bombing people who refuse to accept Christianity, whilst they embrace those who do... It sure does seem that America has rebirthed the Inquisition, and is using it the same way the Spanish used their inquisition against the innocent peoples of South America, when they war slaughtered all non-believers to their Christian god's love, and stole their gold, and molested their suddenly parentless children... The only difference is that America is after their oil and dope, not their gold... America's Christianity Inquisition has already destroyed two ancient human cultures right in the middle of Arabia.. and they have their Christian sights set on Iran, South Korea, and Pakistan... Three more ancient cultures to destroy for god and oil...

Actually it seems that America is in process of sending all life on this planet to their great Christian heaven, by killing everything as fast as possible in pushing for a great nuclear war, killing everybody all at once, so their great proverbial heaven fantasy will be full of life...

Right now, Christianity's Inquisition is literally devouring the whole world's quality of life to fund its Inquisitor wars against Innocents...

Thing is Christianity has made living life on earth into living in hell on earth, in trying to fulfill prophesy... Thing is those prophesies were warnings of doom, of things not to do.. not a road map of what to do... Me thinks Christianity is insanity, as in "ChristInsanity" "God Fever".. similar, and related to, the mental disease, "Gold Fever"...

Norsefire

04-08-08, 05:31 PM

redwards

04-08-08, 06:37 PM

Prayer, and faith overall, has its own fair share of benefits, but those are mental benefits not physical benefits; for instance, it can bring hope, happiness, and confidence and strength, via prayer, even if it doesn't actually work.To paraphrase: you can do nothing and feel like you're helping. Bravo.

Let me know how I can actually help, and I'm all ears.

(Q)

04-08-08, 08:38 PM

Prayer, and faith overall, has its own fair share of benefits, but those are mental benefits not physical benefits; for instance, it can bring hope, happiness, and confidence and strength, via prayer, even if it doesn't actually work.

As a mental 'benefit,' one can also experience despair, sadness, diffidence and weakness, when praying results in bugger all.

S.A.M.

04-08-08, 08:44 PM

Saves on fees to the therapist and probably cuts down on poor impulse control and substance abuse.

superluminal

04-08-08, 09:23 PM

But you do not know if they are myths; I mean, certainly if you go into specifics and all these stories and nonsense and books, yes, but as for the core concept itself (an intelligent entity beyond Human perception), I see nothing ridiculous about that concept.
Neither is the concept of a galaxy-wide advanced civilization of intelligent plasma clouds. You see the point? You can propose any fucking concept you want. Only an idiot would put so much stock in something with so little to back it up.

cosmicbrat

04-09-08, 02:31 AM

Prayer, and faith overall, has its own fair share of benefits, but those are mental benefits not physical benefits; for instance, it can bring hope, happiness, and confidence and strength, via prayer, even if it doesn't actually work.

"Life's magic", better known as "Sorcery" Does actually work...
Sorcery needs no ceremonies, nor prayers, nor anything but Love for all life...

Religion took its dogmas from sorcery, but took only the superficial descriptions of the parts of sorcery which are benign and non-threatening like religious mashed potatoe...
I.E.: I am able to employ basic sorcery to do hands-on healings, which heals my patient in 1.28 seconds...
With slightly advanced sorcery I am able to employ six distinct layered focuses, to hypnotize seawater, to make a square-mile of turbulent ocean be as calm as glass is smooth for as long as the six focuses are maintained...
For six years I've been searching for a forum worthy of my disclosing this formula to quiet seawater.. knowing it would literally put that forum the map...
I figure one in a thousand could do it.. but would mass abuse of the novelty screw-up the tides..? But maybe the tides do need screwing-up..?

Sorcery is Life...

Religion's preached glories start only after death... Religion teaches that death is better than life... That's insane... Now days religion has suicide bombers believing they are doing god's murdering... Religion is death... Sorcery is Life...

cosmicbrat

04-09-08, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Norsefire
"I never said impact, I simply said that we [Humans] are not capable of sensing that which is supernatural, therefore we can not make any sort of claim as to whether it exists or not."

Ohh but we are capable of sensing that which is deemed "supernatural" by those who are unable to access these levels of thought processing...

Religions condition kids to get migraines when they attempt to process thought using more than the permitted 7% mind usage... At 8% mind usage or employment, the Christian's cerebral nerve plumbing constricts, causing a painful headache, which pills can't alleviate... is why Christians can't fathom sorcery and supernatural... Their religion doesn't want them to see the lies and evils in religion... That would lose the religion some of its tithers... It's all about money... Sorcery is all about love, and sorcery is all free...

Norsefire

04-09-08, 06:06 PM

Neither is the concept of a galaxy-wide advanced civilization of intelligent plasma clouds. You see the point? You can propose any fucking concept you want. Only an idiot would put so much stock in something with so little to back it up.

That's something described by what we know, something within our universe, something we are familiar with; God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it.

redwards

04-09-08, 06:09 PM

"Life's magic", better known as "Sorcery" Does actually work...
Sorcery needs no ceremonies, nor prayers, nor anything but Love for all life...

Religion took its dogmas from sorcery, but took only the superficial descriptions of the parts of sorcery which are benign and non-threatening like religious mashed potatoe...
I.E.: I am able to employ basic sorcery to do hands-on healings, which heals my patient in 1.28 seconds...
With slightly advanced sorcery I am able to employ six distinct layered focuses, to hypnotize seawater, to make a square-mile of turbulent ocean be as calm as glass is smooth for as long as the six focuses are maintained...
For six years I've been searching for a forum worthy of my disclosing this formula to quiet seawater.. knowing it would literally put that forum the map...
I figure one in a thousand could do it.. but would mass abuse of the novelty screw-up the tides..? But maybe the tides do need screwing-up..?

Sorcery is Life...

Religion's preached glories start only after death... Religion teaches that death is better than life... That's insane... Now days religion has suicide bombers believing they are doing god's murdering... Religion is death... Sorcery is Life...

:roflmao:
:roflmao:
:roflmao:

superluminal

04-09-08, 06:30 PM

Cris

04-09-08, 06:32 PM

Norsefire,

God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it.You would think though that something so vast, all encompassing, and so all powerful, would have left just a tiny clue that it actually existed, or more importantly that it needed to exist.

There is nothing to support either case.

redwards

04-09-08, 06:32 PM

That's something described by what we know, something within our universe, something we are familiar with; God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it.If it interacts with the world, it's possible to demonstrate evidence. If it doesn't interact with the world, then the situation is identical to it not existing. You can't have it both ways.

(Q)

04-09-08, 06:46 PM

For six years I've been searching for a forum worthy of my disclosing this formula to quiet seawater.. knowing it would literally put that forum the map...

It probably won't put us on any map, but it (http://www.crank.net/) certainly is worthy of your disclosure.

(Q)

04-09-08, 06:51 PM

God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it.

The absoluteness of your contradiction is hypocritical of your claim.

:scratchin:

superluminal

04-09-08, 06:53 PM

God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it.
Then why be concerned with it in the least?

cosmicbrat

04-09-08, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Norsefire
God, the concept of a superior intelligence, is infinitely larger than we can comprehend, it is impossible IN ANY WAY to disprove or prove it."

The irony of it, is the greater the Being is, the stupider it is...
The greater Beings I met needed to be taught that my touch was safe...
It's easy to comprehend a greater Being.. Simple! Just be friends with it, and it will let you in...

And you are correct in one thing.. It is impossible to prove god.. because it doesn't exist, but in your mind, in your wishes, but not in your dreams...
Ever notice that no one ever dreams of "god"...

Norsefire

04-09-08, 11:32 PM

If it interacts with the world, it's possible to demonstrate evidence. If it doesn't interact with the world, then the situation is identical to it not existing. You can't have it both ways.

True, but only if speaking from a POV regarding OUR existence, our universe, but that does not mean that there is not a greater intelligence beyond that of Humanity, and beyond that which we can sense and comprehend. Whether or not this intelligence has much interaction, if any, with our existence, I do not know.

I've already explained, it is impossible to prove God (or disprove) because the concept involves a force beyond what we can sense and what we can comprehend, and you can't prove (or disprove) what you can't understand.

Norsefire

04-09-08, 11:34 PM

Then why be concerned with it in the least?

I don't know; why waste the time? I ask too.

However, I am interested in the cultural and social advantages of faith vs atheism within a society, and therefore while I myself am agnostic, I do want faith to be preserved within a society as I believe removing it is removing a MASSIVE aspect of society; i.e, how much of modern culture, practice, tradition, etc, has derived from faith? And what impact would removing faith have? It simply isn't worth it, and that's why I believe a moderate form of faith must be preserved, lest we lose that element and descend into some money and drug-obsessed void.

redwards

04-10-08, 10:01 AM

True, but only if speaking from a POV regarding OUR existence, our universe, but that does not mean that there is not a greater intelligence beyond that of Humanity, and beyond that which we can sense and comprehend. Whether or not this intelligence has much interaction, if any, with our existence, I do not know.:bugeye:

You just admitted that if there's any interaction, the phenomenon is testable. If there's no interaction, it may as well not exist.

I've already explained, it is impossible to prove God (or disprove) because the concept involves a force beyond what we can sense and what we can comprehend, and you can't prove (or disprove) what you can't understand.

But you're missing the larger point: it's pointless to postulate a god. Unless you have some evidence of which I'm unaware, there remains no reason to suspect that any manner of god exists. Obviously, I could go on to draw the unicorns/dragons/faeries/spaghetti monster parallels, but I imagine you've heard this before.

redwards

04-10-08, 10:03 AM

I don't know; why waste the time? I ask too.

However, I am interested in the cultural and social advantages of faith vs atheism within a society, and therefore while I myself am agnostic, I do want faith to be preserved within a society as I believe removing it is removing a MASSIVE aspect of society; i.e, how much of modern culture, practice, tradition, etc, has derived from faith? And what impact would removing faith have? It simply isn't worth it, and that's why I believe a moderate form of faith must be preserved, lest we lose that element and descend into some money and drug-obsessed void.

Defining faith as "belief without evidence," what, exactly, do you find redeeming about faith?

cosmicbrat

04-10-08, 07:52 PM

There is a greater Being, but it's not necessarily omnipotent...
I met a greater Being several times.. five times it spoke...

In the first incident, it spoke twice... I had severed my spinal cord in a fatal accident, and managed to do the necessary mind to cause my DNA to secrete its gel stuff, which repaired the break, and rerouted nerves... Now medi-scans show that my spinal cord was severed, and rejoined 15-degrees rotated, at the break-site, between my shoulders... It's a long story... Anyway, after I got sensation back in my lower half, and was standing again, a black creature, resembling a classic monk's shroud, entered from my 7:oclock, appearing and disappearing as if it was somehow moving in "folds in the air"... It positioned itself ten-feet from me, and we got into some pretty scary stuff... Near the end of it, I hyperventilated, and summoned me deepest strongest voice, and shouted at the top of my lungs just before my voice breaking, while I pointed at the ground fifty-feet from me, saying, "Now Go and Not Return!"... Some greater Being said the same words simultaneously with my words, but so Loud that it nearly burst my eardrums, and it shook the ground, and the leaves of trees a hundred yards away, and made the ground tremble like tank speeding-by a few feet from me... The creature bowed its head and obeyed.. but left a stench so rude that it froze-up my breathing for nearly four minutes...

I just managed to make my way home, walking the five-miles after having my spinal cord reattached... That was one H of an experience... There were times I just waned to lay down on someones lawn and die.. the pain was so extreme that every breath pulled me into a couple seconds of unconsciousness... Curbs were real nasty to negotiate...
I made it home, and up the stairs, barely, and to a cold bath to cool some of the fire in my back, and climbed into bed, and me mum comes in, and touches right on the break-site, and I gets knocked unconscious for a moment... She suggests I go visit my uncle the chiropractor.. is when that same voice says, "Do Not! for the child does not fathom gelling nerve tissue.".. but not so loud as before.. I passed on the chiropractor... I found the least painful position to lay in.. locked it in, and slept in that position for 43-hours straight... I woke, seeing 30-foot animated auras around trees, and 6-foot multi-colored vapor-trails behind flying birds.. and billions of new thoughts swirling in my mind...

The next time I heard that voice, a female adolescent Bigfoot had approached my deep-woods campsite, and had touched my neck, and had paralyzed me, and touched a second time, and was scanning my seven memory rivers, which gave me the op to see the machinery of my memory system... I telepathed to the beast, " May I scan you while you scan me?"... The reply came into the ear that was facing the ground... That same extremely powerful rumbling voice.. shook the ground like a tank speeding close by, says, "Look No Touch!"... While I was looking in their species collective unconscious, and had paused a moment, the same voice asked, "Did you learn?"...
I replied, "I learned"...
If it were a god, I'd suppose it would have known that, and what, I learned...

The next time I heard that voice, I was sleeping half out of my tent near a deserted mining town, near Goldbridge BC, when something pressed hard on my bum, twice, and I started to wake... The same voice said, "You Do Not want to wake into what is transpiring!".. so I accepted that, and tried to push myself back into sleep while rolling over in trying to escape the vile stench that came in with every in-breath... I rolled over as I made a little irritated whiny sound... I woke about a minute later, to find that a grizzly's claws had punctured the plastic tarp under/beside the sheepskins that I was laying on, wide deep claw holes/rips in the plastic tarp 4-inches from my nose...

OK.. so I heard a big voice a couple times.. but I don't have a clue what owns that voice..? Whatever it is, I bet it's Big!.. and I suppose it's watching over me... But I doubt it's an angel, nor a god.. Maybe it's a friendly dragon..?
Maybe it's Merlin, given that when I was three months old the ruby he placed on my chest sunk into my solarplex, and must therefore be apart of me, or me a part of him..? given that I seem to know so much weird magic, but was never taught it... It's all natural... It's a super fun ride... I figured you humes would want to learn it, but all you give is flack... It's as if you are content with your slide into extinction... I just can't figure you out..?

What ever owns that big voice is just a good friend that some times talks very loud... I don't label-it, in respect of it...

I don't believe in "gods".. I believe in Life and Love... And it seems Life and Love believes in me...

If anyone has any data on what owns that big voice, I'd sure love to hear about it...

Fukbin

12-07-08, 01:28 AM

Here it goes folks-

My Mom was raised Orthodox Jewish, my Dad was raised a Conservative Jew, and I was raised as a reformed Jew (no Yamaka on the Rabbi, but we wore 'em). I never believed in God as it did not pass the "What's the proof test". But first let's get our terms straight:

God is an entity that has the ability to create, reason, destroy, hear prayers, and other Godly things. May take the form of man (Jesus) or sit on a cloudy thrown. He may even look like George Burns! He may be a uni-functional God like a Tree God.

If your definition of God is "That" (that which is unknown), Mother Nature, the Universe, or the likes, please do not read on. This does not apply to your God.

How can we take a person seriously if they believe in invisible men, people and dinosaurs coexisting 6000 years ago (you go Sarah Palin, ass wipe), wine turning into blood every Sunday (one of my favorites)? This from a book about a person marrying their half sister, stoning wives (like that one ladies), banning gays, banning shell fish, speaking of boats holding 2 of every animal in the world, handing things down from the sky, the fig leaf dude, etc.

God wasn't mentioned at my house (except for God Damn it), but was at our temple. I was not only required to go to high holidays (puff), but "Sunday School", and two retreats. What a fuckin' waste of a good Sunday morning.

Don't force God on me please!!!! No wonder the Romans tacked him up on a cross--they got pissed off (actually I am against killing and condemn the Romans for all of their acts of torture and killing). I believe that living things are sacred; but not non-existent things. :cool:

So why am I so pissed off? Sarah Palin. The Born Agains/Morons (the Latter Day Saints). 90% of the Wars including 911. Many of our stupid laws and customs. All of the time wasted which could be used to cure Cancer and bring on world peace.

This will make you laugh the hardest (if you have a sense of irony), I am a Buddhist.

"My God's on Tour" (a reference to his holiness, Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead). And he did LSD!!!!

Fukbin

12-07-08, 01:35 AM

Fukbin

12-07-08, 01:40 AM