As usual, you drifted off, in your usual hippie manner, making a strawman. I talk about being fired as a victim of mobbing, you talk about being fired in general or for any other reason than being a victim of mobbing.
Ah, why do I bother.
Existential crisis - please Help!
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
As usual, you drifted off, in your usual hippie manner, making a strawman. I talk about being fired as a victim of mobbing, you talk about being fired in general or for any other reason than being a victim of mobbing.
Ah, why do I bother.
Oh no! My sins shall now be counted. I thought becoming an Atheist will give me a free pass to kicking kittens and punching puppies. Guess not. [I mean to suggest that you are taking this a bit too seriously - lest my {attempt at} humour be misunderstood].
I have, to my knowledge, kept my former religion, my name, my racial background and the country of my residence undisclosed. There is a very good reason for this. As an avatar on the internet, one is truly anonymous - until such specifics are revealed. Prejudice - subconscious or conscious, naturally arises once someone can be tagged with them. I wanted myself to be defined purely by my thoughts and actions to keep conversations as uncomplicated and productive as possible.
No. Association has not ever been an important goal. The "utilitarian or pragmatic reasons" simply refer to prevention of social friction - other than my parents, most of my close relatives are fundamentalists/literalists and would simply not GET [or accept] atheism. Some are them are even Homophobes. In this case, doing anything other than what I did is ridiculously stupid and massively counterproductive. Nevertheless, I am dropping hints and ideas all the time in my conversations with them so that I can prime them for the eventual reveal. Besides, all my cousins and friends know of my atheism [its even on my Facebook description] and have all, without my request, decided to play along with my deception.
No, I criticized their ideas and beliefs and that is fair game on this forum [should to be everywhere, otherwise Mitt may very well have been the President]. I have, to my knowledge, probably the lowest ad hominum count on this forum. I have already explained why it was behind their backs.
No its not. I have clarified this before - My name aaqucnaona is an anagram [Fraggle, is that the right word?] for "Ask A Question You Cannot Ask On Normal Account" from my 'Yahoo! Answers' days because some questions [like asking for pirate versions of difficult to get items] are banned and I didnt want my main account at risk. I carried over the name simply because its diffcult to guess at random and therefore more secure. It is not descriptive of any of my accounts on other sites made after I left Y!A [around 3 years ago].
That is not true either. I have only hidden the extent of my skepticism, not its existence. I am well known among my relatives as a very liberal and non-superstitious person. I went as far in being intellectually honest as I could without being pragmatically unsound.
That was the point of the discussions we had all the time. To explore and discuss these topics. A part of such conversations is to debate and argue over various uncertain or muddy topics. Even if we didn't disagree, one of us would nevertheless assume the opposing position for the sake of argument. I made it clear that these are a positive side to our relationship - "I cant claim much credit for that. Ever since I was a child, my mum often used to discuss with me at length many social, philosophical and theological topics and inculcated in me a deep appreciation of thought and a insatiable curiosity for knowledge. That, more than anything else, made me who I am."
I have criticised her ideas because I found faults in them and as I said, they are fair game. Just because she is my mother [and I love her immensely and respect her - as I described on the recently closed Homophobia thread] does not mean her ideas are off limits. NOTHING IS OFF LIMITS for a sensible discussion. Pretending that those [or that] you love is perfect is the surest way to ensure that they never will be. I have never criticised her as a person [unless you can find some counter-examples], though even that is justified if the criticism is a useful one and help her to better herself - and I dont mean she isnt good right now, just that life in general is [or should be] a process of self-improvement.
Again, that was the point of it. My parents have always been like friends to me - I have always said things and expressed feelings that many might be comfortable divulging only to their close friends. And again, such discussions are not off limits unless they [the parents] are not comfortable with them [the discussions].
In what way? I have been very light on ad hominums and haven't been condescending either. Can you give some examples to the contrary?
What, that I deserve this? Even if Karma isnt the simple and well known combination of co-incidence + conformation bias [it most likely is], I have done more good than bad in my life. Besides, considering that this is a help thread, that attitude is quite very unhelpful.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Yeah aaqucnaona, shame on you! It's all coming back to you now! And it's YOUR fault! Repent and grovel before you are reduced to total despair! Or so it goes in wynn's neurotic little universe..
Why would you punch a puppy... they still have teeth, better to forget consonance and kick puppies and punch kittens....
I've explained to you what I meant by your current troubles being like karma.
Whether this is taking things too seriously or not - that's up to you, and up to you to face the consequences of your actions.
So you do admit that what you're doing is deception?
Okay.
Maybe at some point in life you will learn that there are many things that are off limits for sensible discussion, and for good reason.
Since the forum search function is shite, I can't cite examples.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No. You very clearly put being fired in the same category as being murdered. If you were trying to accomplish something else, the rhetoric you used didn't work.
No. It's just an abbreviation. If we could pronounce it as though it were a word, like "laser" for "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation," that would be an acronym. (Although these days most Americans use the words interchangeably.) An anagram is a complete word, phrase, sentence, etc., with the letters rearranged: "glean" for "angel."
Something like 20% of ER admissions in the USA are for cat bites. People usually get them on their hands. There's very little tissue between the skin and the bone on our hands, and cat teeth are much sharper than dog teeth, so they typically go all the way down into the bone. It's very hard to clean the bacteria out of the bone, so it requires a lot of treatment. So putting your hand in front of an angry cat, or one who will soon become angry because of your own actions, is a really dumb thing to do!
Dog bites are usually somewhere else on the body where there's more meat, and dog teeth are not as sharp, so most of them can be treated at home.
Nonetheless, if you want to punch or kick somebody, why not a human? 99.999% percent of the time, that's who made you angry in the first place.
Fraggs,
The opposite of ''Islam'' is non-Islam. ''islam'' means voluntary submission to God''. The Christians are therefore not the opposition.
Please address both questions. Thanks in advance.
I know nothing of the sort, and you certainly don't know that.
With regard to the rest of this section of your response.... I don't buy it.
That's fair enough, and characteristic of materialistic living. You'll find that people who consciously live simply (despite having the facility to complicate their lives), are more prone to high thinking due to an uncluttered life. Clarity of thought always follows. It is this characteristic that, for me, determines whether one is properly religious (God-centered lifestyle), and a person who cannot fathom the simple life, materialistic.
What do think happens when bombs and soldiers are sent into countries like Iraq, or Afganistan. Do you think they disciminate between adults and children?
I don't think you fully comprehend what I mean by ''simple living'' and ''high thinking''.
It doesn't mean you don't utilise technology.
''The massive power of coincidence''?
Don't you guys ever get tired of your own BS?
I don't blame you, what with discovery of ''The Massive Power of Coincindence''.
A diety is basically relative to each individual, in terms of what one calls it. The energy one transmits and receives actually determines whether one is ''religious'' or not. For example, back in the day alot of young rhythm and blues artistes were chastised by their church for singing gospel music as a means to make money (as opposed to worship), meaning they would change the subject matter. The outcome (the songs) were no more or less energetic, only the object of affection had changed. What we received (the public) was exactly the same experience but for a different reason.
Real religion is all about energy. We are energy, and we interact with energy. I would go as far as to say that there is nothing but energy. You and I are do nothing but exchanging energy
Having Beyonce's picture on you wall (admiring her, wanting her, or wanting to be like her), dressing like her, or if you're a man, fancying women who remind you of her, takes the same amount of ''energy'' as worshiping a devotee of God (for the relevant reasons), you just think differently, and affects you accordingly.
Sorry, I don't buy that memes, archetype, genetics, etc, as explanations for why people are religious.
Which could be why your comprehension of religion is very basic.
What are the fairytales?
And how did your mum know they were (if talking about ancient scriptures)
''Christian'' is a name which describes the mindset and object of one who claims the title. The object of worship is God, through the agency of God' representative, Jesus. My advice to you is to bypass what ''Christians'' believe, and go to the source for your information and comprehension.
''Evangelism'' is a word that is not found in the Bible, plus, Jesus didn't ''evangelise'', meaning he didn't go from door to door, or try to convert his murderers or their society. He actually chastised some of the bogus rabbi's informing them of their natural (satanic) heritage. But he didn't try to convert them.
jan.
me said:
The opposite of ''Islam'' is non-Islam. ''islam'' means voluntary submission to God''. The Christians are therefore not the opposition.
Please address both questions. Thanks in advance.
I know nothing of the sort, and you certainly don't know that.
With regard to the rest of this section of your response.... I don't buy it.
That's fair enough, and characteristic of materialistic living. You'll find that people who consciously live simply (despite having the facility to complicate their lives), are more prone to high thinking due to an uncluttered life. Clarity of thought always follows. It is this characteristic that, for me, determines whether one is properly religious (God-centered lifestyle), and a person who cannot fathom the simple life, materialistic.
What do think happens when bombs and soldiers are sent into countries like Iraq, or Afganistan. Do you think they disciminate between adults and children?
I don't think you fully comprehend what I mean by ''simple living'' and ''high thinking''.
It doesn't mean you don't utilise technology.
''The massive power of coincidence''?
Don't you guys ever get tired of your own BS?
I don't blame you, what with discovery of ''The Massive Power of Coincindence''.
A diety is basically relative to each individual, in terms of what one calls it. The energy one transmits and receives actually determines whether one is ''religious'' or not. For example, back in the day alot of young rhythm and blues artistes were chastised by their church for singing gospel music as a means to make money (as opposed to worship), meaning they would change the subject matter. The outcome (the songs) were no more or less energetic, only the object of affection had changed. What we received (the public) was exactly the same experience but for a different reason.
Real religion is all about energy. We are energy, and we interact with energy. I would go as far as to say that there is nothing but energy. You and I are do nothing but exchanging energy
Having Beyonce's picture on you wall (admiring her, wanting her, or wanting to be like her), dressing like her, or if you're a man, fancying women who remind you of her, takes the same amount of ''energy'' as worshiping a devotee of God (for the relevant reasons), you just think differently, and affects you accordingly.
Sorry, I don't buy that memes, archetype, genetics, etc, as explanations for why people are religious.
Which could be why your comprehension of religion is very basic.
What are the fairytales?
And how did your mum know they were (if talking about ancient scriptures)
''Christian'' is a name which describes the mindset and object of one who claims the title. The object of worship is God, through the agency of God' representative, Jesus. My advice to you is to bypass what ''Christians'' believe, and go to the source for your information and comprehension.
''Evangelism'' is a word that is not found in the Bible, plus, Jesus didn't ''evangelise'', meaning he didn't go from door to door, or try to convert his murderers or their society. He actually chastised some of the bogus rabbi's informing them of their natural (satanic) heritage. But he didn't try to convert them.
jan.
Aqueos,
All you're affirming is your belief that the inner workings of the cell came about via a physical process, then craftily tag ''science'' on the end to give it some cred.
You can't get rid of ''religion'', you can only change it. IOW, there is no such thing as ''no religion'', but there is such a think as no God-centered religion (maybe that's what you mean).
''Religion'' is nothing but a way of life. If the way of life is the same, ie, physical, mental, etc.. then the action is the same. What differs is the object. All people have a way of life, and as such they live according to certain codes and patterns. This relates not only the physical, but mental, and spiritual actions.
It's roots are nothing of the sort, although some ways of life are rooted in such things which therefore can be characterised as their religion.
Science explains phenomena from the ground up, plus it can only provide information that our gross senses can make sense of, and from there it makes predictions. It is by no means the be all end all in cultivation of knowledge, and belief that it is a similar kind of ignorance you refer to.
I remember once when I was at school, and one of the students wanted to go somewhere without the teacher seeing him, so he put a book over his face and proceeded to go. His thinking was '' if I can't see him, he can't see me''. Of course all of us, including the teacher just stood for a few seconds watching this boy, while he thought he was making his escape.
Your quote kinda reminds me of that. You give a name (''teen idol worship) to something, that is distinct from what it actually is, then use the new name as proof that the actions isn't what it actually is, and act like the new name actually means something.
It doesn't matter. Believe that someone is a ''prophet sent by God'' isn't religion, it is simply information. Religion is ''a way of life'', and the way of life between one who worships Ganesha, Elvis, Beyonce, farmer Giles life, is the same, as in ones mind and body goes in a mode where these objects are central to their lives. That's (ir) religion (if God is central).
jan.
All you're affirming is your belief that the inner workings of the cell came about via a physical process, then craftily tag ''science'' on the end to give it some cred.
You can't get rid of ''religion'', you can only change it. IOW, there is no such thing as ''no religion'', but there is such a think as no God-centered religion (maybe that's what you mean).
''Religion'' is nothing but a way of life. If the way of life is the same, ie, physical, mental, etc.. then the action is the same. What differs is the object. All people have a way of life, and as such they live according to certain codes and patterns. This relates not only the physical, but mental, and spiritual actions.
It's roots are nothing of the sort, although some ways of life are rooted in such things which therefore can be characterised as their religion.
Science explains phenomena from the ground up, plus it can only provide information that our gross senses can make sense of, and from there it makes predictions. It is by no means the be all end all in cultivation of knowledge, and belief that it is a similar kind of ignorance you refer to.
I remember once when I was at school, and one of the students wanted to go somewhere without the teacher seeing him, so he put a book over his face and proceeded to go. His thinking was '' if I can't see him, he can't see me''. Of course all of us, including the teacher just stood for a few seconds watching this boy, while he thought he was making his escape.
Your quote kinda reminds me of that. You give a name (''teen idol worship) to something, that is distinct from what it actually is, then use the new name as proof that the actions isn't what it actually is, and act like the new name actually means something.
It doesn't matter. Believe that someone is a ''prophet sent by God'' isn't religion, it is simply information. Religion is ''a way of life'', and the way of life between one who worships Ganesha, Elvis, Beyonce, farmer Giles life, is the same, as in ones mind and body goes in a mode where these objects are central to their lives. That's (ir) religion (if God is central).
jan.
Indeed. Jan has defined religion so broadly that for her, anything a person does is a religion.
Read his post again, the part I quoted.
Jan is a female. And what do you mean, I re-read it and I am not getting the point you are trying make.
And you know this how?
I've known Jan for some eight years now. But you tell me you know better, and I should just believe you?
Ooomph.
Just like some people adore Beyonce, so some people adore God.
One is religion, and the other one isn't. Can you tell which is which?
There is a difference between ''a religion'' and just ''religion''. Do you understand that?
jan.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Jan is goin thru sexual reassignment surgery. Presently she is a man trapped inside a woman's avatar.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Academic definitions are useful in their place. But I thought we were talking about the world out there, not academia. In actual practice, the most conservative Islamic societies regard apostasy as a capital offense. So to convert from Islam to Christianity apparently does, indeed, make you one of "the opposition."
I'm a scientist (although not a professional career scientist, as I had to explain to a member earlier today), which means that I subscribe to the scientific method as the most reliable way to discover the truth about the universe. The scientific method requires an assertion to be supported by some evidence that is at least moderately respectable before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect. The so-called "evidence" for the existence of Cain as a real flesh-and-blood human being is nothing more than a few pages in a book, in a portion which is 100% metaphor. This evidence is as "respectable" as the evidence for the Tooth Fairy.
Even during the near die-off of our species, dozens of millennia ago, there were still about ten thousand of us. There was never a time when the human race consisted of one man, one women and their progeny. If there were, the entire bloodline would have died out due to inbreeding. It would make the half-wit hemophiliacs in the medieval European royal families look sane and healthy in comparison!
"Materialistic"? I live for music. 99% of the physical artifacts I treasure are my instruments and the rest of the gear that allows me to perform music or enjoy someone else's. (Plus the gear I need to keep a job so I can afford music as well as food and a place to live for my dogs and me.) There's a lot of technology in that, all of which we owe to the scientists and engineers who discovered electricity and the myriad ways to use it--and to the craftsmen, entrepreneurs, bankers, investors, salespeople, drivers, stockroom workers and everyone else who turns that technology into real stuff that I can bring into my house.
"High thinking?" Wow, what a great new buzzword. It automatically makes you superior to the rest of us.
It sounds almost exactly the same as the rhetoric the Abrahamists use to justify treating us like second-class citizens. Fuck it!
Of course not, although to be fair most of today's armies try somewhat harder to minimize "collateral damage" than Attila and Genghis Khan. Unfortunately drones don't. All of which can make us proud that the scope of war has been steadily decreasing since its high-water mark in 1945. WWII killed three percent of the human race. It's been quite some time since any war took a "mere" one million casualties. When the conflicts in places like Syria reach 100,000--a trifle in historical context--even the most dedicated pacifists among us start thinking about "situational ethics" and wondering whether a few well-placed missiles would result in fewer deaths in the long run.
But no, that's how regional conflicts turn into world wars. The Russians have already come down on the side of Assad, while Obama supports the rebels. And we all remember how well it turned out in Iraq when we helped the "poor downtrodden Shiites" overthrow the "nasty evil Baathists."
I certainly don't. It all sounds like Buddhist woo-woo to me. I hear enough of that from Mrs. Fraggle. Although even she isn't condescending enough to characterize herself as "high thinking."
Thanks for letting us know that you weren't a math major.
I suppose you could say that about practically anything. This discussion keeps veering farther off into philsophy, but what can you expect when its title contains the word "existential?"
For someone who clearly isn't well-versed in mathematics, you talk as though you understand relativity.
Fine. But it would be more useful to the topic at hand if you could explain WHY you don't buy any of those scientific explanations, considering that you are having this discussion in a place of science!
She was no scientist, but even my mother understood that it's foolish to believe in something for which there is absolutely zero respectable evidence.
The philosophers of the Bronze Age were certainly capable of understanding human nature, but their knowledge of the nature of the universe was pathetic. Have we touched on the geocentric universe or the flat earth?
But my quarrel is not with their source material. As I have said many times, I love Jesus just as much as I love Kermit the Frog, Frodo Baggins and Winnie the Pooh. You don't have to be real to be wise and to be a wonderful role model.
My quarrel is with them! They use the words of Jesus as justification to kill each other, and especially to kill people who don't even claim to be Christians. Yes I realize that in 2013 this criticism is more applicable to one of the other branches of Abrahamism, but the Christians, Muslims and Jews have all taken their turns at being consummate assholes. I'm sure that in a few hundred years when the two shiny new Abrahamic religions, Baha'i and Rastafari, become "establishment," they'll be doing the same thing.
What actual flesh-and-blood Christians and other Abrahamists DO is much more important to me, the person who has to pack my bags and move to another city in the middle of the night when they decide that "heathens" have to be cleansed, or to duck when they start shooting missiles at each other, or to learn a new language and take my family to a different country when they poison the curricula of all the schools in this one, than what their holy book says, especially since they are either drastically misinterpreting it or completely ignoring it anyway!
I'm not arguing that. My point is that both Christians and Muslims are taught that the world will be a much better place once they get off their butts and start converting all of us to their way--and, depending on the era in question, killing those of us who resist.
This is what I hate about their communities. Not their book.
I suppose my only criticism of their book, however, is a really big one: IT DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK! Christians, Muslims and Jews make up more-or-less half the population of this planet, and I can't come up with one single criterion by which I could say that they are any better, in any way, than the other half.
They keep dragging us back down into the tribalism of the Stone Age: "We're better than you, so get out of our way."
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Once again you disingenuously misquote me to make a fraudulent point.
I've never tried to shoot or deport religious people, bomb their churches, outlaw their beliefs, or persecute them in any way. I argue against them and insult them, but that's just free speech, the same as I get from them.
In other words, yes I do "think I'm better than them," but I don't take the next step of trying to "get them out of my way" by force, violence and duplicity. That is one of the major reasons why I am, indeed, "better than them." I play by the rules of civilization. They play by the rules of the Stone Age, which is exactly where religion comes from.
As usual, you can't win an argument honestly so you look for another way. I'm getting really tired of this so be on notice that I'm going to stop letting it slide. If you can't hold your own in a fair argument, then please crawl back into your safe, comfortable church where no one disagrees with you and where the rules of logic don't apply.
Indeed. Don't pat yourself on the back too soon, though.
It's hate speech.
The rules of the "civilization" that believes that the most there is to human life is to indulge in greed, anger and delusion?
At least traditional religions try to transcend this.
How civilized of you to make stuff up about me.