Notices
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 501 to 600 of 600
Like Tree114Likes

Thread: The Pure Theist is Rare.......

  1. #501 Zin on purity: 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    .......or quite possibly extinct. By pure I mean not subjected to the influence of other human beings, having formulated the idea of a supreme being entirely on their own. IOW the personal revelation that god(s) exist is simply a postulate fostered by observation and experimentation, not influenced by prophets, scribes, religions or churches. Practically scientific in that the pure theist probably exercises a discipline or method to conclude, for themselves, a rational and logical reason or explanation as to why god(s) might exist. I think this was very possible in the early days of isolated tribes or groups and shall I say along with a lack of real scientific knowledge, but in today's society damn near impossible. If you've been living in a cave all your life, raised by wolves or stranded alone on a desert island without human contact then your chances of becoming a pure theist are good.

    Today's theist is a diluted version of the pure. So watered down in fact, that I hesitate to even call them believers. I've come across so many that actually say they know god(s) exist and for me at least, that removes belief from the equation. IMHO, once you start adding beliefs together then the purity is simply replaced by what I like to call convoluted codswallop. Perhaps a theist would call it the evolution of theism in order to maintain the purity but I would counter that you shouldn't attach more postulates to a postulate before the original has been proven.

    I suppose it is possible to live life believing a god exists while completely ignoring conventional religion. Not sure of any numbers to that statement yet I can understand if someone doesn't heed any of the world's theistic religions to decide on a god of their own. Still I can't see that decision based purely on one's own thoughts, rather its more likely caused by a perceived inanity concerning today's theistic religions.

    So, for that matter, I don't consider any of today's theists as actually once possessing the thought of a god without the influence of another human. Theism today is not even a reasonable facsimile of pure theistic thought as I see it. On this forum I find it odd that atheism is considered a belief by many theists yet the theistic viewpoint has become factual.....totally bizarre. It's all backwards.
    I underlined an interesting passage: Im not discussing this with the OP, im just curious whether I fit the criterion of Purity! Hmmm.... lets see:

    (a) "...not subjected to the influence of other human beings,"

    Is this an honest and proper definition? Can there be someone so isolated? At the moment of birth everybody surely in some sense is influenced by their mothers?

    Obviously then NO human can fit it! And it is implied also that the criterion cannot apply to other things than humans.So,for example, it discriminates computers and horses! The OP must be joking. His definition IS worthless. At least to anyone but himself. I suppose he spent hours, uselessly polishing the thing to perfection (As he saw it.) and Im not sure what to do now: Written IS written!

    (b) "... having formulated the idea of a supreme being entirely on their own."

    I defined the Minimum god entirely on my own...But so cleverly that it cant be said of Minimum to be anything special! In particular "supreme" cant be predicated of Minimum.

    (c) "...the personal revelation that god(s) exist is simply a postulate fostered by observation and experimentation"

    Bah! "revelation". Bullshit. Heres how:
    (0) Def if x is a cause of the existence then x is the god minimum
    (1) For every x there is a cause of x not identical to x
    (2) There is existence
    (3) There is Minimum (QED)

    Its pure logic unless you insist that (1) must be proven to be observationally true in the manner of (2)
    But (1) IS the basic scientifical principle so the proof rest on solid scientifical ground.

    (d) " ...not influenced by prophets, scribes, religions or churches"


    We saw in point a that zin doesnt use "influenced" in any sensible manner so im discussing point d.

    To sum up: The semantic value of the topic is close to zero.
     

  2. #502  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    That was fun! I like to exercise my intellect!
    But im still angry of my naivite in writing the foundational text. By the way I decided I must stick to the rules:
    You did not enter a formally correct application so youre NOT the second name on the membershiplist. Happy now?

    At least I am Im now the one and only name on the membershiplist of the only scientific and logic religion there is
    and no one can stop me from adding explanatory texts to the foundation.
    I sincerely hope things will remain that way.

    Please DONT admire Minimum! DONT be exclusively logical and scientific. BELIEVE things without proof and observation. Please remain ignorant! I repeat DONT admire Minimum openly... Keep such statements out of my sight. If you cant help admire the minimum in any way...keep your opinion to youreself. Thank you!
     

  3. #503  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    This entire post is in response to question for you's double post rant of redundantly fallacious claims.
    Oh dear... i've been giggling hard since last night.

    Seagypsy sweety, I only asked you two questions. It's very decent and hard working of you to respond to every comment I made but the only things I want to know are:

    "This stuff about making up more threatening enemies.. what on earth are you talking about? why would anybody do that? What do you base it on?

    The other thing I wanted to know is: Do you and neverfly know each other outside of The Science Forum?"

    It really is only the last question i'm interested in... Avoid the question and hide it behind an irrational rant if you wish. I thought we were all being honest and open here.

    P.S I haven't seen Harold contribute to this thread for a long time. All I've seen is a frankly mad, insane, irrational series of rants that avoid pretty much all questions and aim to bellittle whoever they are directed at. Time and again.

    I'm trying to understand where this madness came from... This is a science forum, its for discussing the cold hard rational facts and speculating based on those. Its a place for people to learn and to gain understanding. Sure we see a lot of petty minded people who are just interested in winning a battle and caressing their ego. We see a lot of people being irrational in an attempt to 'beat' somebody in a battle they created for themselves.

    Never before on the science forum have I seen two people so utterly up each others backsides and devoid of reasonable thought. I suspect that we'r seeing the primative nature of human's coming to the surface. The primative, animalistic irrational nature of humans who stick together and remain loyal regardless of right or wrong, good or bad.

    This is perfectly natural human behaviour, especially amongst the more savage and primative mentalities. But it has no place in a intelligent forum of discussion and learning.

    If two people are coming on here and supporting each other in most or all arguments regardless of logic and reason then I think this truely is something the Admin might be interested in.

    Which is why I will ask you for the 3rd time...

    Do you Seagypsy and your friend Neverfly Know each other outside of The Science Forum.com?

    Yes or no is all thats required... feel free to go into detail if you like..

    Now to read up on the vast amount of other posts that appeared lastnight... should be a laugh.
    Last edited by question for you; December 13th, 2012 at 06:42 AM.
    westwind likes this.
     

  4. #504  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    This entire post is in response to question for you's double post rant of redundantly fallacious claims.
    Oh dear... i've been giggling hard since last night.

    Seagypsy sweety, I only asked you two questions. It's very decent and hard working of you to respond to every comment I made but the only things I want to know are:

    "This stuff about making up more threatening enemies.. what on earth are you talking about? why would anybody do that? What do you base it on?

    The other thing I wanted to know is: Do you and neverfly know each other outside of The Science Forum?"

    It really is only the last question i'm interested in... Avoid the question and hide it behind an irrational rant if you wish. I thought we were all being honest and open here.

    P.S I haven't seen Harold contribute to this thread for a long time. All I've seen is a frankly mad, insane, irrational series of rants that avoid pretty much all questions and aim to bellittle whoever they are directed at. Time and again.

    I'm trying to understand where this madness came from... This is a science forum, its for discussing the cold hard rational facts and speculating based on those. Its a place for people to learn and to gain understanding. Sure we see a lot of petty minded people who are just interested in winning a battle and caressing their ego. We see a lot of people being irrational in an attempt to 'beat' somebody in a battle they created for themselves.

    Never before on the science forum have I seen two people so utterly up each others backsides and devoid of reasonable thought. I suspect that we'r seeing the primative nature of human's coming to the surface. The primative, animalistic irrational nature of humans who stick together and remain loyal regardless of right or wrong, good or bad.

    This is perfectly natural human behaviour, especially amongst the more savage and primative mentalities. But it has no place in a intelligent forum of discussion and learning.

    If two people are coming on here and supporting each other in most or all arguments regardless of logic and reason then I think this truely is something the Admin might be interested in.

    Which is why I will ask you for the 3rd time...

    Do you Seagypsy and your friend Neverfly Know each other outside of The Science Forum.com?

    Yes or no is all thats required... feel free to go into detail if you like..

    Now to read up on the vast amount of other posts that appeared lastnight... should be a laugh.
    I have reported your post for being insulting, as well as all your other insults of the thread. Also for your demands to know personal information that is none of your business and has nothing to do with the thread. You are not entitled to know anything about me personally. If you have a problem or suspicions about me and/or Neverfly file a report with the admin. Public forum is not the place for it. From here on out you are being put on ignore. Have a nice day.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  5. #505  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Bunch of Garbage
    I've rarely seen such a dishonest and manipulative post. Aside from Bells on Sciforums that is...

    I've shown your error repeatedly and lying and manipulating the readers by claiming psychological traits as apparent in your opponent is just a fancy ad hom.

    You don't tell me what I said- I tell you what I said. You don't get to invent whatever meaning you like from my posts and then continuously try to support it with personal questions or attacks.

    Your personal attacks are a distraction and a disruption.

    What I've outlined is the opposite of what you claim it is. I truly do not understand what motivates you to stubbornly persist in telling readers your misinterpretation. If I clarify something you don't understand- shouldn't you reasonably accept that clarification instead of persisting in claiming it must be false because that clarification is not what you want to believe?

    If you want to whine about feeling ganged up on and jump to wild conclusions about that as well (Considering that S.G. and I disagree often)- pursuing to personal requests, you might consider looking around the board where physicists "gang up on" ATM theorists and pseudo-scientists and the like.
    If two or more people argue against you- it's not Ganging Up.

    Now- are you going to come up with rational and reasonable on topic arguments or are you going to cry?
     

  6. #506  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I want to remind everyone to calm down a bit. There is no need to hurl insults around and people's personal lives are off limits if they deem it so. I know the lot of us can't help ourselves from getting stuck in the age-old theism vs non-theism debate, but there is no need to go too far. If it gets out of hand too much, I'll be forced to close the thread and/or hand out some temp bans.

    And the bloody theist-atheist-irrationality thing; can we drop it please? Neverfly said one thing, QFU interpreted it one way and Neverfly corrected that interpretation. That should be the end of now. Seriously, page after page about essentially one comment!
    seagypsy likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  7. #507  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    And now we have a perfect example of how the subject of "pure theism" has been discussed for tha past three thousand years....
    Last edited by Write4U; December 13th, 2012 at 07:27 PM.
     

  8. #508  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    And the bloody theist-atheist-irrationality thing; can we drop it please? ... !
    Hey
    I'm a theist, and I can be just as irrational as any imtheist or athiest, without actually putting too much effort into it.

    Can a rational mind choose irrationality? Or, was Hamlet the only one?
     

  9. #509  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I suppose he spent hours, uselessly polishing the thing to perfection (As he saw it.) and Im not sure what to do now: Written IS written!
    I actually didn't think of it until I sat down at my PC that day, about 10 minutes. Sorry if I didn't define pure theist to your liking. If you are trying to embarrass me then I must say that you have mistakenly thought of me as someone who gives a shit whether you like the thread or not. I post to elicit response or prompt others to get off their hands and join in. This is how I learn. I'm a better person for it at the end of the day. I get misquoted and misunderstood like everyone else. I hate long posts and since I prefer brevity I'm apt to come up short on a definition or three. I can handle criticism, I love spontaneity, irony, sarcasm, humor, ask a lot of questions and ...well enough about me

    What I'm trying to say here:

    Someone, somewhere, originated the idea of a god. At that time there were no theists. I give the guy credit for coming up with the thought, brilliant for the times. Based on what, we can only speculate. If that first guy believed it then he was the first theist too. However I did mention in a later post that the originator may very well have thought the idea as bonkers but did happen to mention it to someone else. As a result there may not have even been a pure theist to begin with.

    God belief is fine. Theism however isn't satisfied with just believing in a god. If a theist knows god is real then do they still qualify as a theist? Theism has evolved to where multiple beliefs have been added to not only support the primary belief but to know the god. When does a belief become factual?

    Today, people may very well devise their own god. It could be anything. Did they think it without previous knowledge of the god thought?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; December 13th, 2012 at 10:02 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  10. #510  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I suppose he spent hours, uselessly polishing the thing to perfection (As he saw it.) and Im not sure what to do now: Written IS written!
    I actually didn't think of it until I sat down at my PC that day, about 10 minutes. Sorry if I didn't define pure theist to your liking. If you are trying to embarrass me then I must say that you have mistakenly thought of me as someone who gives a shit whether you like the thread or not. I post to elicit response or prompt others to get off their hands and join in. This is how I learn. I'm a better person for it at the end of the day. I get misquoted and misunderstood like everyone else. I hate long posts and since I prefer brevity I'm apt to come up short on a definition or three. I can handle criticism, I love spontaneity, irony, sarcasm, humor, ask a lot of questions and ...well enough about me

    What I'm trying to say here:

    Someone, somewhere, originated the idea of a god. At that time there were no theists. I give the guy credit for coming up with the thought, brilliant for the times. Based on what, we can only speculate. If that first guy believed it then he was the first theist too. However I did mention in a later post that the originator may very well have thought the idea as bonkers but did happen to mention it to someone else. As a result there may not have even been a pure theist to begin with.

    God belief is fine. Theism however isn't satisfied with just believing in a god. If a theist knows god is real then do they still qualify as a theist? Theism has evolved to where multiple beliefs have been added to not only support the primary belief but to know the god. When does a belief become factual?

    Today, people may very well devise their own god. It could be anything. Did they think it without previous knowledge of the god thought?
    I think there is only one first time for everything. But I don't think that if the one original thinker that imagined a god had not done so, that there would be no theism today. I think if he/she hadn't come up with it, someone else would have. We all have hte same capabilities to imagine things and our imaginations are finite. eventually every idea that can come to mind will and its just a matter of time. Unfortunately the only way to test the hypothesis is to take many human beings from the moment of birth and have them raised by chimps, while under observation of humans who are never allowed to interfere. Then at some point, draw them back to humans and teach them a language and ask them if chimps believe in a god/creator/ supernatural being. If they seem utterly confused at what you are suggesting, chances are the idea never crossed the mind of chimps, but then ask if he/she has ever wondered about such things and you may find that they have even in absence of other humans. I think the human would but I have no way of testing it without doing some very unethical things.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  11. #511  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I hate long posts
    Well, too bad.


    How original a specific thought is- I couldn't say. Think of all the fantasy and stories we have- the comics and movies-- any of them original, anymore?
    It's all been done before. If you think up a story or plot- the Simpsons already did it.

    But the impetus, the desire has always been there. Who knows when its first rudimentary forms first appeared. Neanderthals buried their dead. Why?

    The impetus is based on the survival trait of Pareidolia. Was around before the humans were.
    The question; "who was the first" is no different from asking, "who was the first human?" The question is too vague considering the very gradual degrees of change.
    It was not Homo Habilus one day and Homo Sapiens Sapiens the next. The concept of the great spirit, ordered plan or divine higher power is just such a thing- A gradually formed concept from the futility of life and survival in a world where life tries to figure out just what to do, how to live, how to make ends meet. You wander around the forest, catching things and eating them... then one day, you don't feel right. Something is wrong and you don't know why. You want to make sense of it because that might lead to not feeling bad anymore.
    Or maybe, you observe other animals as yourself eat certain berries and later- they die. The brain evolved to learn pattern recognition and this helps you to observe those effects and avoid such berries...
    Or maybe it's catastrophic environmental changes. Who changed the environment? Why did they? Did I inspire whoever did it? You want to have some idea of what makes these things happen because our brains evolved to recognize patterns, you feel the urge to find the pattern and increase your chances of survival to breeding age.

    There probably never was a first or a last. Just people motivated by a brain that evolved in this environment. We all have it. Every last one of us. We then take what we will from observing our surroundings to try to make sense of it. A religious person will pick and choose what to take from their cultural religion. A scientist will generate general interest in their field of study and consider it the way to understand the world. An atheist might focus on any key interest and all of us have that same capacity to believe in what we will. All of these are symptoms of the problem.
    The nature of belief is just a part of us, evolved with us, began before us.
    This is why people join this forum with conspiracy theories about the Moon Landing... 9-11 or what have you. It's why they join saying Einstein was wrong. It's why some people seem obsessed by UFO's and the "Truth™" - It is the exact same psychology that drives religion.

    Which is why my answer to Sculptor was, "I'm opposed to Bunk." Religion as an establishment is just one of many- one facet and theism is a facet and promotion of CT's or Pet Theories also a facet...

    The scientific method was devised in order to avoid this problem. To work around the inherent human condition. We have, not only the capacity for primitive thought, but also the capacity for higher thought, critical thinking and using the scientific method to overcome our own nature.

    To address the question, "Do I think religion is bad?"
    Sure, I do. I think all the symptoms are bad. Just because they are only the symptom and not the problem doesn't mean I must be politically correct and sidestep telling it how it is. Why dodge it?
    A fever can be pretty bad, too. And you know what? Sometimes, when the virus is the problem and the cause, you still need to take an Acetaminophen to deal with the fever.

    The purpose of confronting religion is like taking a Tylenol. It's effective to show people how the symptom works. They can relate to the symptom much more easily than they can the problem itself. They can see it more clearly and its effects.

    This doesn't mean that religion is the problem. It doesn't mean that anyone who isn't religious is better at critical thinking. Obviously, they cannot be since they have that same capacity to be believers of anything they observe in their environment or culture and focus on it.
    What it does mean, however, is we can teach and educate and encourage critical thinking as a habitual behavior, rather than allowing people to be enabled.
    It doesn't matter which load of bunk you choose. It could be CT's or pseudo-science or religion or pet scientific hypothesis. Expose the bunk. Show people what critical thinking is and its effects.
     

  12. #512  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I suppose he spent hours, uselessly polishing the thing to perfection (As he saw it.) and Im not sure what to do now: Written IS written!
    I actually didn't think of it until I sat down at my PC that day, about 10 minutes. Sorry if I didn't define pure theist to your liking. If you are trying to embarrass me then I must say that you have mistakenly thought of me as someone who gives a shit whether you like the thread or not. I post to elicit response or prompt others to get off their hands and join in. This is how I learn. I'm a better person for it at the end of the day. I get misquoted and misunderstood like everyone else. I hate long posts and since I prefer brevity I'm apt to come up short on a definition or three. I can handle criticism, I love spontaneity, irony, sarcasm, humor, ask a lot of questions and ...well enough about me

    What I'm trying to say here:

    Someone, somewhere, originated the idea of a god. At that time there were no theists. I give the guy credit for coming up with the thought, brilliant for the times. Based on what, we can only speculate. If that first guy believed it then he was the first theist too. However I did mention in a later post that the originator may very well have thought the idea as bonkers but did happen to mention it to someone else. As a result there may not have even been a pure theist to begin with.

    God belief is fine. Theism however isn't satisfied with just believing in a god. If a theist knows god is real then do they still qualify as a theist? Theism has evolved to where multiple beliefs have been added to not only support the primary belief but to know the god. When does a belief become factual?

    Today, people may very well devise their own god. It could be anything. Did they think it without previous knowledge of the god thought?
    I think there is only one first time for everything. But I don't think that if the one original thinker that imagined a god had not done so, that there would be no theism today. I think if he/she hadn't come up with it, someone else would have. We all have hte same capabilities to imagine things and our imaginations are finite. eventually every idea that can come to mind will and its just a matter of time. Unfortunately the only way to test the hypothesis is to take many human beings from the moment of birth and have them raised by chimps, while under observation of humans who are never allowed to interfere. Then at some point, draw them back to humans and teach them a language and ask them if chimps believe in a god/creator/ supernatural being. If they seem utterly confused at what you are suggesting, chances are the idea never crossed the mind of chimps, but then ask if he/she has ever wondered about such things and you may find that they have even in absence of other humans. I think the human would but I have no way of testing it without doing some very unethical things.
    Actually it is very probable that chimps have a notion of an "unseen enemy", which later was refined to gods and demons.
    During a monsoon, while the whole troup huddles as best they can from the rain, an alpha chimp may be seen running around, waving a stick and beating on the bushes, jumping and screaming at this unseen enemy that makes loud noises and throws fire and water at him and makes him wet, scared and very uncomfortable.
    IMO, this defensive/aggressive behavior at an unseen enemy is the first sign of belief. It stems directly from survival instinct and reaction to "unknown threats".
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
     

  13. #513  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    I suppose he spent hours, uselessly polishing the thing to perfection (As he saw it.) and Im not sure what to do now: Written IS written!
    I actually didn't think of it until I sat down at my PC that day, about 10 minutes. Sorry if I didn't define pure theist to your liking. If you are trying to embarrass me then I must say that you have mistakenly thought of me as someone who gives a shit whether you like the thread or not. I post to elicit response or prompt others to get off their hands and join in. This is how I learn. I'm a better person for it at the end of the day. I get misquoted and misunderstood like everyone else. I hate long posts and since I prefer brevity I'm apt to come up short on a definition or three. I can handle criticism, I love spontaneity, irony, sarcasm, humor, ask a lot of questions and ...well enough about me

    What I'm trying to say here:

    Someone, somewhere, originated the idea of a god. At that time there were no theists. I give the guy credit for coming up with the thought, brilliant for the times. Based on what, we can only speculate. If that first guy believed it then he was the first theist too. However I did mention in a later post that the originator may very well have thought the idea as bonkers but did happen to mention it to someone else. As a result there may not have even been a pure theist to begin with.

    God belief is fine. Theism however isn't satisfied with just believing in a god. If a theist knows god is real then do they still qualify as a theist? Theism has evolved to where multiple beliefs have been added to not only support the primary belief but to know the god. When does a belief become factual?

    Today, people may very well devise their own god. It could be anything. Did they think it without previous knowledge of the god thought?
    I think there is only one first time for everything. But I don't think that if the one original thinker that imagined a god had not done so, that there would be no theism today. I think if he/she hadn't come up with it, someone else would have. We all have hte same capabilities to imagine things and our imaginations are finite. eventually every idea that can come to mind will and its just a matter of time. Unfortunately the only way to test the hypothesis is to take many human beings from the moment of birth and have them raised by chimps, while under observation of humans who are never allowed to interfere. Then at some point, draw them back to humans and teach them a language and ask them if chimps believe in a god/creator/ supernatural being. If they seem utterly confused at what you are suggesting, chances are the idea never crossed the mind of chimps, but then ask if he/she has ever wondered about such things and you may find that they have even in absence of other humans. I think the human would but I have no way of testing it without doing some very unethical things.
    Actually it is very probable that chimps have a notion of an "unseen enemy", which later was refined to gods and demons.
    During a monsoon, while the whole troup huddles as best they can from the rain, an alpha chimp may be seen running around, waving a stick and beating on the bushes, jumping and screaming at this unseen enemy that makes loud noises and throws fire and water at him and makes him wet, scared and very uncomfortable.
    IMO, this defensive/aggressive behavior at an unseen enemy is the first sign of belief. It stems directly from survival instinct and reaction to "unknown threats".
    You are probably right. I just remembered that the video link you presented showed that even pigeons show evidence of superstitiousness by repeating any odd behavior pattern that may have produced a treat at some point. apparently any higher (higher than a plant) lifeform has these cognitive abilities. I remember reading somewhere that dolphins see Asian humans as evil/bad. Neverfly had shown me the article maybe one of us can find it again... hint hint... neverfly get to work and find that... again.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  14. #514  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  15. #515  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    Not seeing the relevance of the question.
     

  16. #516  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    Yes I have, and I have mentioned it several times in the thread. I was raised baptist, then migrated through several denominations of Christianity in my life, studied world religions in college (including spending time studying Buddhism with an actual monk) and eventually converted to Islam and lived in Pakistan for a year, which drove me away from Islam, then I called myself pagan because I rejected Abrahamic religion but still believed in a higher power and had a similar mindset to scultpor's. Then went back to studying psychology again and through heavy introspection in light of what I came to understand through study of psychology, I came to the conclusion that I had no valid reason to believe in any such higher power and realized that my faith had only ever been an emotional crutch or an excuse to do nothing to change my circumstances. It was quite a painful transition and I fought it but logic won out and here I am.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  17. #517  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    I was raised atheist and in casual conversation I'll say I am atheist because IMO, theism by definition involves a supernatural intelligent being, an argument which I consider to be a fatally flawed. But interestingly, a native american bruha told me once that I was very spiritual. I considered it a compliment.
    I consider myself to be a meta-physical naturalist.
    KALSTER likes this.
     

  18. #518  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    I consider myself to be a meta-physical naturalist, but also atheist because IMO, theism by definition involves a supernatural intelligent being, an argument which I consider to be a fatally flawed. But interestingly, a native american bruha told me once that I was very spiritual. I considered it a compliment.
    I had a similar reaction to the monk telling me I would be an excellent Buddhist because of my understanding of it. He said I grasped the teachings of Buddhism better than many of his long term students who actually were Buddhist.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  19. #519  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Just wondering, since Sculptor (and possibly others) have been saying that there are things about theism that you can't fully understand without having been there yourself at some point. As far as I would guess, most atheists were theists at one point in their lives and sometime even pretty devout ones. Some people like Matt Dillahunty were actually in training to become ministers, priests or pastors before they started to lose their faith.

    It might be true that a lifelong atheist can't really understand it, but that doesn't mean their points are any less valid, especially since their points are the same as those of ex-theists. What it might help with is for the ex-theist to have more empathy for theists and their beliefs, which might make it a little bit easier for an ex-theist to recognise that same mechanisms that were responsible for their belief are still operating in other ways through their lives.

    I don't believe in free will, nor destiny, so to me I am nothing more than lucky to have been able to see through all of the smoke and mirrors of religion/theism and are infinitely glad that I did. The world, universe and people is so much more of an interesting place now to me than it would have been. Theists often don't or can't get that being an atheist does not necessarily destroy beauty, meaning or a sense of duty towards your fellow man and for many it enhances it. I don't believe in absolute morals, nor in an objective significance to things like love, but to me and many atheists that doesn't take anything away from how important those things are. A subjective meaning to life is all we need and even enhances our mutual responsibility to each other. I have felt many a time that more than anything else, theists don't get that; they fear letting go of the fictional grand scheme of things, because they think their lives will lose purpose and their morals will mean nothing. So they hold fast to their beliefs, even in the face of strong cognitive dissonance, because they fear the implications of letting go.

    And the sad truth is that because they can't get that, it would be a bad thing to pull the rug out from under them, because they will almost invariably fall.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  20. #520  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Have any of you guys actually been theists at one point or another? Would you mind sharing? Thanks.
    Yes I have, and I have mentioned it several times in the thread. I was raised baptist, then migrated through several denominations of Christianity in my life, studied world religions in college (including spending time studying Buddhism with an actual monk) and eventually converted to Islam and lived in Pakistan for a year, which drove me away from Islam, then I called myself pagan because I rejected Abrahamic religion but still believed in a higher power and had a similar mindset to scultpor's. Then went back to studying psychology again and through heavy introspection in light of what I came to understand through study of psychology, I came to the conclusion that I had no valid reason to believe in any such higher power and realized that my faith had only ever been an emotional crutch or an excuse to do nothing to change my circumstances. It was quite a painful transition and I fought it but logic won out and here I am.
    That sounds almost worthy of a book. Thanks for that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  21. #521  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Just wondering, since Sculptor (and possibly others) have been saying that there are things about theism that you can't fully understand without having been there yourself at some point. As far as I would guess, most atheists were theists at one point in their lives and sometime even pretty devout ones. Some people like Matt Dillahunty were actually in training to become ministers, priests or pastors before they started to lose their faith.
    I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer.

    It really makes no difference in the argument because all they need to claim is that even though "I was practicing the religion, etc, I never truly believed elsewise I wouldn't have lost my way."

    It's a moot point, really.
     

  22. #522  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Just wondering, since Sculptor (and possibly others) have been saying that there are things about theism that you can't fully understand without having been there yourself at some point. As far as I would guess, most atheists were theists at one point in their lives and sometime even pretty devout ones. Some people like Matt Dillahunty were actually in training to become ministers, priests or pastors before they started to lose their faith.
    I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer.

    It really makes no difference in the argument because all they need to claim is that even though "I was practicing the religion, etc, I never truly believed elsewise I wouldn't have lost my way."

    It's a moot point, really.
    I agree, but I wonder if "spiritual people", i.e. theists, understand that atheists can and do experience pure emotional ecstasy (love) without being carried "on the wings of an angel".
    I was a professional musician for many years and have heard the "music of the spheres" and the "harmonies of the heavens", but I have learned that "to the symphony of life, no one has the score".

    This sums up the "Unanswered question",
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkaOz48cq2g
    Last edited by Write4U; December 15th, 2012 at 08:08 PM.
     

  23. #523  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Just wondering, since Sculptor (and possibly others) have been saying that there are things about theism that you can't fully understand without having been there yourself at some point. As far as I would guess, most atheists were theists at one point in their lives and sometime even pretty devout ones. Some people like Matt Dillahunty were actually in training to become ministers, priests or pastors before they started to lose their faith.
    I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer.

    It really makes no difference in the argument because all they need to claim is that even though "I was practicing the religion, etc, I never truly believed elsewise I wouldn't have lost my way."

    It's a moot point, really.
    They can say that, but we both know it isn't true. We remember what it felt like to have God on your side, to be on the side of good, to have that feeling of being in safe hands, of having someone that really understands you even better than you do yourself, etc, etc, and all the feelings of contentment, exhilaration, etc. that goes with that.

    I don't think it is moot. We have those experiences to draw on in order to help us better understand existing theists. We are lucky in that way. Mutual understanding is what we should strive for.

    I have a feeling that you regret those years of your life? I'd say embrace it. You clearly have a passion for discussing these things, so why not let those experiences help you and integrate them into your efforts? Here we have people who claim and believe that you don't know what you are talking about, when in fact you do. You have been where they are now and if they don't believe that, make them believe it. I believe both of you will benefit from exploring that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  24. #524  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I never said I regret it. It's just no longer applicable.
     

  25. #525  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    You don't think it can help you in discussions like these? Do you disagree with the rest of my post?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  26. #526  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I believe both of you will benefit from exploring that.
    emphasis placed by me



    Who are you referring to when you say "both of you"?
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  27. #527  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I believe both of you will benefit from exploring that.
    emphasis placed by me



    Who are you referring to when you say "both of you"?
    The atheist and theist involved in a discussion, where the atheist used to be a theist. Sorry, wasn't clear.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  28. #528  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    You don't think it can help you in discussions like these? Do you disagree with the rest of my post?
    You are confusing me here... maybe my wording threw you off? The belief in a deity is no longer applicable to my own choices and life.
    The learning experiences- all that I've ever had about anything, will always be applicable.
    I don't disagree with anything you've said at all. I do not understand where you perceived me as having regrets about having once been a Christian. I only see that as a part of living and growing up. I enjoyed a lot of experiences, including going to church and, when involved in the ministry, helping people out with difficulties.

    It just came to a point where I could not deny things I'd learned in order to maintain a belief I no longer considered rational.

    It's similar to Kepler (I'm no Kepler, but I'm referring only to a particular choice.)
    Kepler had reviewed Brahe's astronomical observations and found that his view of the solar system did not match observation. The data was close, but still not quite accurate.
    One might wonder, considering Keplers very strong beliefs, whether he may have felt tempted or even obligated to patch up the data so that it worked with his hypothesis about planetary motion.
    But Kepler could not deny the facts, no matter how badly he may have wanted to. He began working on a solution, instead. He found one in elliptical orbits. With those models, he could mathematically align planetary motion to observational data. Over the years, he wrote Keplers Laws.
    But that model had nothing at all to do with his original idea of Five Nested Solids governing planetary motion. It must have been quite a blow to him.
    When I let go of my belief in God, I was depressed about it. It felt like I had lost something- like a divorce or something. But I simply could not reconcile the belief against observational evidence.
    As time passed, I began to realize just how much I'd expanded my world by letting go of that belief and that depression lifted away. Decisions that were muddled before became clearer. It became a bit easier to examine my role in things, contemplate decisive action or make definitive plans without 'leaving it to Gods will" or "If it's meant to be..." I no longer felt compelled to defend a belief and found it much easier to examine things on other topics as well, and to look at things skeptically.

    There is nothing to regret there. As a kid, I believed in Santa Clause. It's not like I look back at that and say, "Wow. What a bastard I was." I didn't know anything about cosmology. I don't look back at that time and say, "What was wrong with me?! I didn't understand planetary development or what happens when a star synthesizes iron?!"

    You just try to keep learning and growing. But no one looks back and says, "Why didn't I understand the Universe when I was born." Learning is an experience.
    KALSTER and MrMojo1 like this.
     

  29. #529  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I believe both of you will benefit from exploring that.
    emphasis placed by me



    Who are you referring to when you say "both of you"?
    The atheist and theist involved in a discussion, where the atheist used to be a theist. Sorry, wasn't clear.
    oh ok, I thought you were addressing two specific individuals in the thread. One being Neverfly and unsure who the other would be. So you are referring to atheists and theists in general then?

    I suspect that very few theists have ever been atheist, that they can remember. We are atheist at birth of course having only a few base beliefs, I am guessing it only takes a few hours to develop the belief that a particular human being (mom) is a protector and provider. And that another (a nurse) is a poker and a pain giver. But we start learning patterns probably before we are actually born. Like that sucking relieves stress (fetuses can be seen sucking their thumbs in the womb). Later discovering that sucking can also alleviate hunger pain. The pattern recognition just goes on constantly and sometimes our brains misinterpret the source or affects of a pattern do to lack of data. So like in a mathematical equation where we don't have all the data needed, the brain creates a variable to fill in the blanks. And one pattern is that unknown variables can lead to pain or death, so the ego dislikes unknowns and soothes itself by inserting random values rather than variables in order to give a sense of control or safety. And when the random values produced cause more discomfort the subconscious brain chooses more comforting values which induce the flood of endorphins and a sense of well being.

    It took me a long time to desensitize myself to the fear of unknowns so that I could be comfortable with variables rather than inaccurate values.
    I am not willing to go into detail of how I did it but now I actually feel safer with the unknowns rather than the delusions.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  30. #530  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ... Evolution is random changes that either assist or inhibit or have no effect on survival. There is no design, intelligent guidance or supernatural interference in it. ... .
    Which wholly and (most likely inacurately) completely discounts the theories of epigenetics

    Randomness is only an assumption based on a limited perspective
    randomness may have a role to play, but ain't(most likely) the only mechanism at work

    I leave preponderance to another generation
    Whether it's the only one or not- the basic question is this:

    Why does millions of years pass for genetic change, why is it trial and error, why is 99% of all species that ever lived extinct?
    Lack of space?
     

  31. #531  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Lack of space?
    Lack of intelligent design.
     

  32. #532  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    We are atheist at birth.
    I oppose:
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    We have not yet learned denial mode.
     

  33. #533  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    Not when they're cryin' at 3 am.
     

  34. #534  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    We are atheist at birth.
    I oppose:
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    We have not yet learned denial mode.
    I don't think we,at birth, comprehend existence to be in love with it. And at birth, the chemicals associated with love in an adult brain, would likely be triggered simply by being warm, dry, and properly fed. Perhaps gentle caressing of the skin would also cause those chemicals to activate. At that stage we don't have the frames of reference established to even imagine a god. So there is nothing to deny or believe at that point.
    Last edited by seagypsy; December 14th, 2012 at 06:28 AM.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  35. #535  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Lack of space?
    Lack of intelligent design.
    I think...you dont:
    (Being blunt: You dont think: You react!)

    Clearly... oupps I mean:
    Very clearly...oupps I mean:
    Obviously clearly...
    Oupps I give up:

    Not so clearly:
    Dont you mean "premeditaded" design?
    Or do you mean the first thought
    (of the implied mind of the existence)
    was: "Oupps:How stupid can I get?"
     

  36. #536  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    "Oupps:How stupid can I get?"
    I've been wondering that, too.


    But you know... I didn't wanna say nuthin'...
     

  37. #537  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Actually it is very probable that chimps have a notion of an "unseen enemy", which later was refined to gods and demons.
    During a monsoon, while the whole troup huddles as best they can from the rain, an alpha chimp may be seen running around, waving a stick and beating on the bushes, jumping and screaming at this unseen enemy that makes loud noises and throws fire and water at him and makes him wet, scared and very uncomfortable.
    IMO, this defensive/aggressive behavior at an unseen enemy is the first sign of belief. It stems directly from survival instinct and reaction to "unknown threats".
    Angry people can react violently under stress by assaulting animate or inanimate objects. Happens all the time.

    Perhaps the alpha chimp was trying to get the others to think (believe) he/she was responsible for their misery. Taking advantage of a situation, establishing his/her power, but not unseen. IMHO the act may be deliberately performed for an audience. Presenting a falsehood for personal gain? How many lies have turned into beliefs? Usually lies can be proven.

    So would the alpha primate be the first to attain god status or was the first god an ape? If so then it would not be imaginary. The first god may very well have been a person, animal or object but I don't think any of these are unseen.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; December 14th, 2012 at 07:26 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  38. #538  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    We are atheist at birth.
    I oppose:
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    We have not yet learned denial mode.
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it. And at birth, the chemicals associated with love in an adult brain, would likely be triggered simply by being warm, dry, and properly fed. Perhaps gentle caressing of the skin would also cause those chemicals to activate. At that stage we don't have the frames of reference established to even imagine a god. So there is nothing to deny or believe at that point.
    Thank you
    for being reasonable!
    Let us argue:
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it.
    To love is not to be rational... loving is immediate (on first sight)... admiring is not.
    So your (erroneous but NOT stupid) objection is:

    "As newborns we havent yet learned how to compare and differentiate. so we cant love!"

    Then you go on into chemistry...I wont follow you in there, I could easily get lost.
    I will instead TRY to elucidate taking the risk of simplifying:

    WE ARE SURPRISED (and terrified) AT BIRTH!
    (Whatever #it# may be)
    WE CANT STOP LOVING IT
    UNTIL WE DIE...

    As to "frames of reference": Aint that exactly the essence of WHAT we are?
    If so then there IS something to deny at that point...
    But we aint staying in the denial mode forever.

    Being in said mode I now ask: HOW can we (referring to your objection) BE "atheist at birth"?

    I mean: Dont you defend being "atheist at birth"
    by trying to prove that it is impossible
    (skipping details) to be "pantheist at birth"?

    Using an argument destroying ones own premisses
    surely destroys ones own arguments... Agree?

    Post Scriptum:

    I should explain the presence of "#". Its simply that I felt (yes Im very emotional) the need for pointing out the obvious in some diffuse cases. The word "word", for example can be said to be used in two modes:

    a: it can be watched
    b: it can refere to the thing it (ahem!) refers to.

    SO: " #x#" simply (?) means an instruction
    (in most cases actually IMPOSSIBLE to do ,
    one can ONLY imagine it done): Replace the word with what it means!
     

  39. #539  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    An atheist simply lacks belief. If a baby lacks belief in the common deities, it can be called an atheist.
     

  40. #540  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    "Oupps:How stupid can I get?"
    I've been wondering that, too.


    But you know... I didn't wanna say nuthin'...
    See! You are predictable!
    You react immediately like a fish on a worm on a hook:
    Little #fish# ... I release you, back into the water with you ,
    go on swimming ... watch out for #bait#!
    The next fisherman might be hungry...
     

  41. #541  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Lack of space?
    Lack of intelligent design.
    I think...you dont:
    (Being blunt: You dont think: You react!)

    Clearly... oupps I mean:
    Very clearly...oupps I mean:
    Obviously clearly...
    Oupps I give up:

    Not so clearly:
    Dont you mean "premeditaded" design?
    Or do you mean the first thought
    (of the implied mind of the existence)
    was: "Oupps:How stupid can I get?"
    Size emphasis mine.

    Why are you assuming that existence is a mind and not just a condition?
    How would we be able to tell a pseudo-mind (mathematical) function from a sentient mind (god) function? Miracles?
    Universal conditions actually support the notion that existence is a mathematically functioning condition. All our physical laws and constants are witness to the consistency and functional continuity of a mathematical universe.

    Diversity in the universe are expressions of emergent qualities from ever greater complexity. Sentience is an emergent quality in some living organisms in the univers, but is not a requirement for the existence and evolution of the universe itself and therefore is subject to Ockham's razor.
    Last edited by Write4U; December 14th, 2012 at 08:16 AM.
     

  42. #542  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    We are atheist at birth.
    I oppose:
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    We have not yet learned denial mode.
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it. And at birth, the chemicals associated with love in an adult brain, would likely be triggered simply by being warm, dry, and properly fed. Perhaps gentle caressing of the skin would also cause those chemicals to activate. At that stage we don't have the frames of reference established to even imagine a god. So there is nothing to deny or believe at that point.
    Thank you
    for being reasonable!
    Let us argue:
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it.
    To love is not to be rational... loving is immediate (on first sight)... admiring is not.
    So your (erroneous but NOT stupid) objection is:

    "As newborns we havent yet learned how to compare and differentiate. so we cant love!"

    Then you go on into chemistry...I wont follow you in there, I could easily get lost.
    I will instead TRY to elucidate taking the risk of simplifying:

    WE ARE SURPRISED (and terrified) AT BIRTH!
    (Whatever #it# may be)
    WE CANT STOP LOVING IT
    UNTIL WE DIE...

    As to "frames of reference": Aint that exactly the essence of WHAT we are?
    If so then there IS something to deny at that point...
    But we aint staying in the denial mode forever.

    Being in said mode I now ask: HOW can we (referring to your objection) BE "atheist at birth"?

    I mean: Dont you defend being "atheist at birth"
    by trying to prove that it is impossible
    (skipping details) to be "pantheist at birth"?

    Using an argument destroying ones own premisses
    surely destroys ones own arguments... Agree?

    Post Scriptum:

    I should explain the presence of "#". Its simply that I felt (yes Im very emotional) the need for pointing out the obvious in some diffuse cases. The word "word", for example can be said to be used in two modes:

    a: it can be watched
    b: it can refere to the thing it (ahem!) refers to.

    SO: " #x#" simply (?) means an instruction
    (in most cases actually IMPOSSIBLE to do ,
    one can ONLY imagine it done): Replace the word with what it means!
    I don't understand most of what you are saying. it seems like you are just spouting out things to sound argumentative, possibly kidding around, but maybe serious, I can't tell. Nothing you've said makes sense to me. It seems as if it was intended to be confusing and nothing more. I actually have you on ignore but silly me, I keep clicking the link to view the post anyway. You are the only person on my ignore list that hasn't explicitly, or seeming to intentionally, pissed me off. I have you on ignore because I can rarely tell what the hell you are talking about. Maybe my fault, maybe yours. I don't know.

    So I will answer the only part of this post that I did understand, at least I think i did. Assuming love can be felt or comprehended, even in its simplest for, by a newborn baby, that does not mean worship. I love my husband but I by no means equate him to being a god. I may call him god on certain occasions but only in a very specific context that we will not go into here, but in the true definition of god (according to the dictionary) I do not equate him to being god (the creator of all that exists).

    So basically Love does not equal worship. So even if a newborn loves everything, that does not make the newborn a pantheist. Atheist is one that has no belief in a god, so lacking that belief (belief in god is something taught to us by our parents, very intentionally, otherwise we would all hold the same god concepts and there would only be one religion and likely no atheists) would make a newborn, atheist.

    btw. i didn't say a newborn cannot love. do not attribute things to me that I did not say.

    I define love as a chemical reaction in the brain. Not something that we intelligently decide to do. So by my definition of love, a newborn is certainly capable of it. It seems your definition of love is something more complex.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  43. #543  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    An atheist simply lacks belief. If a baby lacks belief in the common deities, it can be called an atheist.
    #(Yawn!)#: So U think (Heh!)
    that it cant equally well be called an agnostic?

    Actually I dont care for your "thoughts".
    But you succeeded in forming a sentence
    expressing a belief
    and I felt I should encourage your efforts.

    You cling to memetical methodology...
    I mean: you repeat the words of your idols.

    Say, saying: "An atheist simply lacks belief.".
    This is a widespread notion, a definition of atheism.
    I understand its tattoed on your mind (supposing its there)
    You sincerely believe in lacking belief...go on! please do so!

    So babe, if a baby lacks a mind, it can be called an atheist?
     

  44. #544  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Yuckkkkkkkkkkkkk
     

  45. #545  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    #(Yawn!)#: So U think (Heh!)
    Yep. Quite often.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    that it cant equally well be called an agnostic?
    No. An agnostic is undecided. An infant is not knowledgeable on the topic. In all actuality, these labels aren't very relevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Actually I dont care for your "thoughts".
    Coulda fooled me. You zero in on them and wrap a wet towel around your head to come up with witty insults. For not caring about what I say, I sure seem to get a lot of your attention.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    But you succeeded in forming a sentence
    I used google translate to convert my primitive neanderthal gibberish into English. It really is a shame I couldn't put it in your native tongue for you.


    Here's the thing, SigurdV:
    You need to do better than hiding your ad homs and making witty retorts. If you have evidence- present it. Otherwise, you're just arguing semantics, trying to confound and confuse- cloud the issues. This tactic is far older than you are and easily recognized.

    There is no intelligent design, no creator, nor Grand Plan. If you want to say that is a belief of mine; feel free. The difference between us is that I can show well reasoned arguments and evidence.

    When you can do the same, feel free to contribute meaningful posts. In the meantime, you're not showing evidence... You're not even showing cleverness, you're showing arrogance.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
     

  46. #546  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    An atheist simply lacks belief. If a baby lacks belief in the common deities, it can be called an atheist.
    #(Yawn!)#: So U think (Heh!)
    that it cant equally well be called an agnostic?

    Actually I dont care for your "thoughts".
    But you succeeded in forming a sentence
    expressing a belief
    and I felt I should encourage your efforts.

    You cling to memetical methodology...
    I mean: you repeat the words of your idols.

    Say, saying: "An atheist simply lacks belief.".
    This is a widespread notion, a definition of atheism.
    I understand its tattoed on your mind (supposing its there)
    You sincerely believe in lacking belief...go on! please do so!

    So babe, if a baby lacks a mind, it can be called an atheist?
    Let me guess, you are one of those people who thinks they get to define all the words of our language. Well guess what, you don't. Atheist does not mean "lacks belief" it means "lacks belief in a god" there is a slight difference if you didn't notice. Atheist are capable, and do believe in many things. What they believe in varies from one atheist to another. The common factor among atheist is that htey lack belief in a god. The "in a god" portion of that statements is vital to the accuracy of the statement.

    So, tell me something. Why the insulting attitude? Are you picking up where Q4U left off? Are you incapable of making a logical argument without being insulting? Should I stop opting to look at your posts? I think I will. And then I can discuss this with people who are capable of reasonable mature discussion without insulting people.


    Maybe you need a reminder of what was already addressed on an official level:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I want to remind everyone to calm down a bit. There is no need to hurl insults around and people's personal lives are off limits if they deem it so. I know the lot of us can't help ourselves from getting stuck in the age-old theism vs non-theism debate, but there is no need to go too far. If it gets out of hand too much, I'll be forced to close the thread and/or hand out some temp bans.

    And the bloody theist-atheist-irrationality thing; can we drop it please? Neverfly said one thing, QFU interpreted it one way and Neverfly corrected that interpretation. That should be the end of now. Seriously, page after page about essentially one comment!
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  47. #547  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    We are atheist at birth.
    I oppose:
    We are pantheist at birth.
    We are in love with existence!
    We have not yet learned denial mode.
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it. And at birth, the chemicals associated with love in an adult brain, would likely be triggered simply by being warm, dry, and properly fed. Perhaps gentle caressing of the skin would also cause those chemicals to activate. At that stage we don't have the frames of reference established to even imagine a god. So there is nothing to deny or believe at that point.
    Thank you
    for being reasonable!
    Let us argue:
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I don't think we comprehend existence to be in love with it.
    To love is not to be rational... loving is immediate (on first sight)... admiring is not.
    So your (erroneous but NOT stupid) objection is:

    "As newborns we havent yet learned how to compare and differentiate. so we cant love!"

    Then you go on into chemistry...I wont follow you in there, I could easily get lost.
    I will instead TRY to elucidate taking the risk of simplifying:

    WE ARE SURPRISED (and terrified) AT BIRTH!
    (Whatever #it# may be)
    WE CANT STOP LOVING IT
    UNTIL WE DIE...

    As to "frames of reference": Aint that exactly the essence of WHAT we are?
    If so then there IS something to deny at that point...
    But we aint staying in the denial mode forever.

    Being in said mode I now ask: HOW can we (referring to your objection) BE "atheist at birth"?

    I mean: Dont you defend being "atheist at birth"
    by trying to prove that it is impossible
    (skipping details) to be "pantheist at birth"?

    Using an argument destroying ones own premisses
    surely destroys ones own arguments... Agree?

    Post Scriptum:

    I should explain the presence of "#". Its simply that I felt (yes Im very emotional) the need for pointing out the obvious in some diffuse cases. The word "word", for example can be said to be used in two modes:

    a: it can be watched
    b: it can refere to the thing it (ahem!) refers to.

    SO: " #x#" simply (?) means an instruction
    (in most cases actually IMPOSSIBLE to do ,
    one can ONLY imagine it done): Replace the word with what it means!
    I don't understand most of what you are saying. it seems like you are just spouting out things to sound argumentative, possibly kidding around, but maybe serious, I can't tell. Nothing you've said makes sense to me. It seems as if it was intended to be confusing and nothing more. I actually have you on ignore but silly me, I keep clicking the link to view the post anyway. You are the only person on my ignore list that hasn't explicitly, or seeming to intentionally, pissed me off. I have you on ignore because I can rarely tell what the hell you are talking about. Maybe my fault, maybe yours. I don't know.

    So I will answer the only part of this post that I did understand, at least I think i did. Assuming love can be felt or comprehended, even in its simplest for, by a newborn baby, that does not mean worship. I love my husband but I by no means equate him to being a god. I may call him god on certain occasions but only in a very specific context that we will not go into here, but in the true definition of god (according to the dictionary) I do not equate him to being god (the creator of all that exists).

    So basically Love does not equal worship. So even if a newborn loves everything, that does not make the newborn a pantheist. Atheist is one that has no belief in a god, so lacking that belief (belief in god is something taught to us by our parents, very intentionally, otherwise we would all hold the same god concepts and there would only be one religion and likely no atheists) would make a newborn, atheist.

    btw. i didn't say a newborn cannot love. do not attribute things to me that I did not say.

    I define love as a chemical reaction in the brain. Not something that we intelligently decide to do. So by my definition of love, a newborn is certainly capable of it. It seems your definition of love is something more complex.
    Perhaps then (If im really on ignore) you wont notice that Im trying to answer you.
    -Yes I can be confusing to read. I even shared your confusion sometimes.

    But I always TRY to communicate thoughts, but I notice that but a few readers show signs of apprehension.
    Im used to it... But that does not mean I want things to remain that way.

    I now look at my argument as a whole...I see nothing wrong...Im not confused by it and I cannot understand what you find confusing. It must be a part or parts of it... I actually do a penetration down to the letter level... I see nothing in need of explanation so unless you guide me in some way Im powerless and cannot act!

    Here is something to comment:
    "possibly kidding around, but maybe serious".

    Im not really sure what "kidding around" is meant by you, if you only mean Im trying to be funny then I have to admit that on the next intentional level I try to be, but on the bottom level I ONLY try to communicate facts (as I see them)...but I cant help doing it in a way that is funny to anyone getting the intended total picture.

    I again want to assure you: I AM basically serious. I WANT sucessful two-sided communication.
    In short: Conversation. With the aim to clarify a subject matter.

    Your statement "We are atheist at birth."

    Started the whole thing! I found it faulty:
    Why not as well say "agnostic" or for that matter "theistic"?

    How can you have an opinion...do you remember being born?

    SO: Are we speaking metaphorically? Or Are we aiming at describing the internal state of affairs of a baby in the process of being born? I prefer to understand the "birth" referred to in your statement, as the process of understanding being alive and aware.

    Im not warning you but if you dont show signs of understanding I will not continue this conversation,
    but reading the following quote I make the prediction that our conversation will continue:

    "You are the only person on my ignore list that hasn't explicitly, or seeming to intentionally, pissed me off. I have you on ignore because I can rarely tell what the hell you are talking about. Maybe my fault, maybe yours. I don't know."


    I hereby declare that I have no intention (becuse she never gave me any reason to) "piss" Seagypsy "off"!

    But if if she stays offended I will stop annoying her.
    There are other poorly expressed statements to analyse.

    Back to business. You say:

    "btw. i didn't say a newborn cannot love. do not attribute things to me that I did not say."

    Perhaps I did attribute something to you in process of trying to understand you...
    if so I hope you understand that I must express it in order to get it clarified.
    At the moment all I can do is expressing the feeling that we are not understanding each other...

    sigurdV (still inclined to treat you respectfully) (but as I perhaps failed to show: NOT arguments)
     

  48. #548  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as a small child, I had thought that big people were big because cosmic dust settled on them and accumulated until they were big,
    .......
    or
    from an episode of the many loves of dobie(sp?) gillis---dobie and his friend maynard g crebbs are camping out in the tropics, and maynard is moving about the inside of the tent and banging on the walls saying "go away polar bears" to which dobie says, "but maynard, there are no polar bears in the tropics", to which. maynard replies, "you see, it works don't it"
    ............

    personally, maybe I was devout for a little while as a teenager, (but I doubt it)---I did pass out when the reverend handed me the bible during confirmation---lights out, down i went---I was in a different place when i woke up.
    For me, I doubt that i would have become a theist without first becoming a "sacriligious son of a bitch"----it's like I pushed real hard on a pendulum----then held on for the ride backward.

    N everfly had mentioned "critical thinking" I have bossed dozens of crews in my life, and worked with many more people, and I gotta tell you that most do not seem to want to engage in "critical thinking"
    with me, it's a cronic condition(illness?)....and, oftimes, i have wished that it were not so, but we are who we are, and only by accepting that, can we appreciate ourselves-------------(seeking a love of god so i could learn how to love myself?)-----and other follies.
    -----------
    the pot simmered for many years, while stray bits of mythologies, and other philosophies and religions were tossed into the stew.
    Exactly when i came to the conclusion that (for lact of a better word) i was most likely a theist-is something I ain't really got a handle on.
    a mystery wrapped in a riddle surrounded by an impenetrable fog of an enigma

    I'm fairly certain that the realization came after I had read kierkegaard, every last bit of gregory bateson's papers, books and articles, and delved into suzuki's works
    (intertaining fellow---he started out by saying that zen could not be expressed by words, and then proceeded to write several books and articles on the subject). And then delving into the foundations of buddhism, and taoism---Ghia, etc...(our shared coevolutionary biom)
    All the while studying the sciences focused on man and the nature of man, and the earthly environment---very eclectic, but centered on "man"
    Somewhere along in there(at my 5th university---)I realized that I was seeing patterns and connections that others weren't----about this time, some of my professors were claiming that I was a genious for makeing connections which they had not seen------mostly this was because I was taking "knowns"
    from one dicipline, and rephrasing them in the lexicon of a related dicipline-------and I had thought that that was all there was to it, but I looked farther into it, and realized that just rephrasing what i was rephrasing wasn't even 1/2 of what I was seeing..........

    Which is why i say that it(theism) is just another mental tool for seering patterns/connections/fractals/
    seeing without seeing
    knowing without knowing
    being without being
    --------because I keep falling back on phrases from zen and taoism, I suspect that it was about the time i was studying them that the spark ignited---
    but I ain't really sure.

    is that theism?
    it certainly ain't theology.
    metaphisical naturalism?
    Diversity in the universe are expressions of emergent qualities from ever greater complexity. Sentience is an emergent quality in some living organisms in the universe
    and only of some people

    nature seems to have a vast redundancy of replicated patterns---eg ice on a windowpane, veins in a leaf---
    that alone should indicate a "guiding principal"
    and from that it is a very small step to seeing causality
    and then .................................................. ..................
    ?

    ---------------------
    here's a nice site to view global weather/clouds
    http://www.whiotv.com/s/weather/inte...e-radar/#at=0&

    cloudy in southern australia, and the same low has been sitting in the north atlantic for 3 days now
    the arctic is breathing it's cold breath into siberia, and leaving us alone(for now)
    What a wonderfull delightful and amazing planet we live on................

    really amazing series of squalls circling the globe near antarctica
    it almost seems as though the southern continant is inhaling
    Last edited by sculptor; December 14th, 2012 at 11:38 AM.
    westwind likes this.
     

  49. #549  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    No idea, Harold.

    I do know there's a tendency among people in self described sceptical/rationalist groups to be a bit self congratulatory about how they/we have escaped the clutches of religion - and that by dint only of superior thinking skills "I'm not irrational like those people".

    But I don't really get it. Being an atheist is like being not a stamp collector or not a chess player - there's nothing to do, there's nothing to be committed to, there's nothing to join. And there's nothing inherently rational about it either - plenty of atheists have silly beliefs about science (homeopathy, climate change, vaccines) or alien/UFO stuff or any one (or any combination) of the legion of silly conspiracy theories.
    I haven't been following this thread, in its entirety, but I have to say, as an atheist, I agree with most of above post, and also post 15 from Harold.
    I have always been doubtful about the value of the "Scientific Study of Religion" sub forum. I tend to think it encourages a group of "militant atheists", within the Forum, to attack those with religious views. I'm all for this if any forum members use their religious beliefs to cast doubt on well established scientific theories, but less happy if these attacks are simply concerned with asserting the merits of atheism as opposed to religion. As mentioned above, many of these posts have a "self congratulatory" air and I doubt they ever "convert" anyone.
    I do, however, disagree with adelady when she seems to suggest that atheism is not rational. I believe it is but that, of course, is not to say that atheists do not have other beliefs that are irrational.
    Last edited by Halliday; December 14th, 2012 at 11:54 AM.
     

  50. #550  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    An atheist simply lacks belief. If a baby lacks belief in the common deities, it can be called an atheist.
    #(Yawn!)#: So U think (Heh!)
    that it cant equally well be called an agnostic?

    Actually I dont care for your "thoughts".
    But you succeeded in forming a sentence
    expressing a belief
    and I felt I should encourage your efforts.

    You cling to memetical methodology...
    I mean: you repeat the words of your idols.

    Say, saying: "An atheist simply lacks belief.".
    This is a widespread notion, a definition of atheism.
    I understand its tattoed on your mind (supposing its there)
    You sincerely believe in lacking belief...go on! please do so!

    So babe, if a baby lacks a mind, it can be called an atheist?
    Let me guess, you are one of those people who thinks they get to define all the words of our language. Well guess what, you don't. Atheist does not mean "lacks belief" it means "lacks belief in a god" there is a slight difference if you didn't notice. Atheist are capable, and do believe in many things. What they believe in varies from one atheist to another. The common factor among atheist is that htey lack belief in a god. The "in a god" portion of that statements is vital to the accuracy of the statement.

    So, tell me something. Why the insulting attitude? Are you picking up where Q4U left off? Are you incapable of making a logical argument without being insulting? Should I stop opting to look at your posts? I think I will. And then I can discuss this with people who are capable of reasonable mature discussion without insulting people.


    Maybe you need a reminder of what was already addressed on an official level:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I want to remind everyone to calm down a bit. There is no need to hurl insults around and people's personal lives are off limits if they deem it so. I know the lot of us can't help ourselves from getting stuck in the age-old theism vs non-theism debate, but there is no need to go too far. If it gets out of hand too much, I'll be forced to close the thread and/or hand out some temp bans.

    And the bloody theist-atheist-irrationality thing; can we drop it please? Neverfly said one thing, QFU interpreted it one way and Neverfly corrected that interpretation. That should be the end of now. Seriously, page after page about essentially one comment!
    Have I ever insulted you? If so I will apologize on seeing your quotation of said insult.
    In the case of Neverfly he is acustomed to offensive behavior and he admits of having himself an offensive attitude and he is not at all ,he implied to me,uncomfortable with the situation. I suspect he thinks of himself as a Mighty Mental Warrior... Were he to whine like a whipped dog I would immediately try to comfort him ...probably still in an insulting manner:
    "There there (pat pat) my poor little wimp, forget your duties and cry out in your worried mothers arms."
    (Where, just as an example, the use of the word "arms" carries a triple intended insult.)

    Let Neverfly defend himself, he is in no danger from me ... let him use his mightiest weapons
    and I will fight back in a proper aikido manner by turning them against him (toys wont hurt him much).

    Is it insulting to you IF I ask if you are of the opinion that the following quote is an "accurate" statement? "
    And may this #humble monk# try to understand and discuss it? It surely is not "holy" in your opinion? It need not be worshipped?

    "The common factor among atheist is that htey lack belief in a god. The "in a god" portion of that statements is vital to the accuracy of the statement."

    Its Ok?! well then here sV goes:

    Who is "htey"?

    Iz "htey" only a spelling error? Or is there some special sense (unknown to hme?) to it?
    What is meant by the inaccurate word "god"? Is , for example, there an object defined by the word "Nothing" and if so is it a god?

    And (just checking): Are Jehova or Allah exclusive possible objects to be included in the foul smelling concept: "god"?

    Will you get upset if I claim that your sentence is NOT accurate, only barely understandable?
     

  51. #551  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    personally, maybe I was devout for a little while as a teenager, (but I doubt it)---I did pass out when the reverend handed me the bible during confirmation---lights out, down i went---I was in a different place when i woke up.

    "critical thinking"
    with me, it's a cronic condition(illness?)....and, oftimes, i have wished that it were not so, but we are who we are, and only by accepting that, can we appreciate ourselves.
    Exactly when i came to the conclusion that (for lact of a better word) i was most likely a theist-is something I ain't really got a handle on.
    a mystery wrapped in a riddle surrounded by an impenetrable fog of an enigma

    I'm fairly certain that the realization came after I had read kierkegaard, every last bit of gregory bateson's papers, books and articles, and delved into suzuki's works
    Somewhere along in there(at my 5th university---)I realized that I was seeing patterns and connections that others weren't----about this time, some of my professors were claiming that I was a genious for makeing connections which they had not seen------ but I looked farther into it, and realized that just rephrasing what i was rephrasing wasn't even 1/2 of what I was seeing..........

    Which is why i say that it(theism) is just another mental tool for seering patterns/connections/fractals/
    ?
    Diversity in the universe are expressions of emergent qualities from ever greater complexity. Sentience is an emergent quality in some living organisms in the universe
    nature seems to have a vast redundancy of replicated patterns---eg ice on a windowpane, veins in a leaf---
    that alone should indicate a "guiding principal"
    and from that it is a very small step to seeing causality
    and then .................................................. ..................
    ?
    Hi there Beastie! HowztheWife?
    Its nice to study your development (#removing boots swords secret weapons etc...
    sitting down with a glass of brandy smoking my pipe#)

    Dont worry if you happen to be a theist ... i mean like Mr K Im more interested in HOW you believe than WHAT you believe.
    I said it elsewhere but Ill do a repeat in case you missed it: The religious disease is (like) a virus
    (yeah! Im talking of a PsychoSocial disease) that can infect devotees of any Ideology including Science!

    Grasping my point? Seeing an atheist battle with any "religious" person
    I wish they would instead join forces and attack their common virus instead of fighting each other.
     

  52. #552  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    #(Yawn!)#: So U think (Heh!)
    Yep. Quite often.
    Coulda fooled me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    that it cant equally well be called an agnostic?
    No. An agnostic is undecided. An infant is not knowledgeable on the topic. In all actuality, these labels aren't very relevant.
    WHAT! Youre being reasonable! But wait! You might mean that although the labels of theist and agnostic are unappliable the label atheist is in some sense more appliable than the others deserving special devotion? I agree that one shouldnt without careful analysis apply the labels anywhere. The categorisation is vague and unsatisfactorily and should be avoided or replaced
     

  53. #553  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    originally posted by sculptor
    nature seems to have a vast redundancy of replicated patterns---eg ice on a windowpane, veins in a leaf---
    that alone should indicate a "guiding principal"
    and from that it is a very small step to seeing causality
    and then .................................................. ? ---------------------
    Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT) !
     

  54. #554  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    originally posted by sculptor
    nature seems to have a vast redundancy of replicated patterns---eg ice on a windowpane, veins in a leaf---
    that alone should indicate a "guiding principal"
    and from that it is a very small step to seeing causality
    and then .................................................. ? ---------------------
    Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT) !
    I prefere traditional poetry.
    Why dont you stop experimenting?
    This will get you nowhere.
     

  55. #555  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    originally posted by sculptor
    nature seems to have a vast redundancy of replicated patterns---eg ice on a windowpane, veins in a leaf---
    that alone should indicate a "guiding principal"
    and from that it is a very small step to seeing causality
    and then .................................................. ? ---------------------
    Causal Dynamic Triangulation (CDT) !
    I prefere traditional poetry.
    Why dont you stop experimenting?
    This will get you nowhere.
    Before you judge why don't you familiarize yourself with CDT.

    Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Causal Dynamical Triangulation: Booting Up The Space-Time Continuum - YouTube
    Renate Loll on the Quantum Origins of Space and Time - YouTube
    sculptor likes this.
     

  56. #556  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    [Here's the thing, SigurdV:
    You need to do better than hiding your ad homs and making witty retorts.
    Im not hiding anything.
    Quote my "sins" if you want my comments.

    Im too lazy to search for the place where we first met.
    But I recall I asked what you were doing,
    and you answered: Annoying people!
    I asked: Any success so far?
    and you answered Hundreds!

    Am I remembering it correctly?
    Did you perhaps succed in annoying hundreds of people
    by being polite towards them?
    If so then ive made a serious misjudgement of you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you have evidence- present it.
    Ill be happy to oblige
    but first you must tell me
    what the evidence is supposed to show!
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Otherwise, you're just arguing semantics, trying to confound and confuse- cloud the issues.
    I resent your derogation of semantics.
    Semantics is used to clarify not to confound and confuse.
    But ...Ok...Maybe Logic and Semantics are confusing for beginners.

    What evidence can you show that my intention is to cloud the issues?
    Id rather do the opposite, if you understand what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This tactic is far older than you are and easily recognized...
    ?
    Cant you ever get to, and demonstrate a point?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    There is no intelligent design, no creator, nor Grand Plan.
    As the words are commonly understood I have no qualms in accepting what is said here but you destroy the possibility of finding a common ground with your next statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    If you want to say that is a belief of mine; feel free.
    Why would I want to say that... arent you making assumptions about my intentions? Or is it a simple question?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The difference between us is that I can show well reasoned arguments and evidence....
    Hey you annoy me! Rejoice! HOW can you compare us? Have you ANY evidence of my stands in any matter? Arent you only assuming what position I represent! I dont believe that you have any facts to compare! You are dreaming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    When you can do the same, feel free to contribute meaningful posts. .
    I will probably stay awake in life but thank you for the generous offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    In the meantime, you're not showing evidence.....
    And you dont show me the good sense of telling me what the evidence is supposed to show... HERE: "1+1=2", is that what you are looking for?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You're not even showing cleverness, you're showing arrogance.
    Beauty, cleverness and arrogance resides in the eye of the beholder. It is usually said.
    I dont care how I look to others...My confidence is boundless...I dont need to estimate or categorize myself...Im satisfied as I happen to be ...and THAT might be mistaken for arrogance. Also Im addicted to truth, near to the exclusion of other guiding principles. Ive noticed truth hurts to most ppl so I try not to tell all of it. A few steps at the time is advisable in most cases.

    And at last: Why did I communicate with you? Well...I dont see you as a hopeless case. I wanted to check your defence capacity and it seems you are easily annoyed and is not gifted with much endurance.
    My advice is: Practise defense instead of attack. Let nobody lure you out of your shell.
     

  57. #557  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Of course one could argue in favor of practising reason based on scientific evidence or logical theoretical science. That way one needs not fight at all.
    sculptor likes this.
     

  58. #558  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    What exactly is the meaning of this series of posts of yours sigurdV? You have been in trouble here before for this kind of thing, which is that your posting style is of the sort designed to stir up trouble more than anything else. Do you deny that? You claim to value truth, but then hold your own version of truth as an absolute. You don't seem to notice well reasoned points and instead take aim at what you perceive as malicious attacks of theists, which fails because you don't really consider the complete argument, do you? Your "boundless confidence" is blinding you. And why did you create a sock puppet account?

    I will refer you again to that post of mine explaining my misgivings about how you act on this forum: http://www.thescienceforum.com/site-...tml#post345044.

    Let me be more direct now: shape up, or ship out. I believe a bunch of us have explained exactly what we are having a problem with. Your continued participation on this forum is in your hands now. If you want to comment, do it in the linked thread please, not here.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  59. #559  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I think there is only one first time for everything. But I don't think that if the one original thinker that imagined a god had not done so, that there would be no theism today. I think if he/she hadn't come up with it, someone else would have. We all have hte same capabilities to imagine things and our imaginations are finite. eventually every idea that can come to mind will and its just a matter of time. Unfortunately the only way to test the hypothesis is to take many human beings from the moment of birth and have them raised by chimps, while under observation of humans who are never allowed to interfere. Then at some point, draw them back to humans and teach them a language and ask them if chimps believe in a god/creator/ supernatural being. If they seem utterly confused at what you are suggesting, chances are the idea never crossed the mind of chimps, but then ask if he/she has ever wondered about such things and you may find that they have even in absence of other humans. I think the human would but I have no way of testing it without doing some very unethical things.
    Hmmmmm....the pure theist may be rarer than rare.

    I thought this was kind of cool. Not sure of how truthful it may be. From Wiki: History of Atheism

    ...... certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

    KALSTER likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  60. #560  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I think there is only one first time for everything. But I don't think that if the one original thinker that imagined a god had not done so, that there would be no theism today. I think if he/she hadn't come up with it, someone else would have. We all have hte same capabilities to imagine things and our imaginations are finite. eventually every idea that can come to mind will and its just a matter of time. Unfortunately the only way to test the hypothesis is to take many human beings from the moment of birth and have them raised by chimps, while under observation of humans who are never allowed to interfere. Then at some point, draw them back to humans and teach them a language and ask them if chimps believe in a god/creator/ supernatural being. If they seem utterly confused at what you are suggesting, chances are the idea never crossed the mind of chimps, but then ask if he/she has ever wondered about such things and you may find that they have even in absence of other humans. I think the human would but I have no way of testing it without doing some very unethical things.
    Hmmmmm....the pure theist may be rarer than rare.

    I thought this was kind of cool. Not sure of how truthful it may be. From Wiki: History of Atheism

    ...... certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

    That is certainly worth further investigation.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  61. #561  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Hmmmmm....the pure theist may be rarer than rare.

    I thought this was kind of cool. Not sure of how truthful it may be. From Wiki: History of Atheism

    ...... certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

    [/QUOTE] That is certainly worth further investigation.[/QUOTE]

    The penchant for certain theistic religions to spread the word, add nomadism, and it could very well be that there may have been pockets of atheistic societies in the world at one time. Each one would have had the chance to develop a belief in a god on their own. The aforementioned pygmies, if the Wiki report is true, may very well have thought of a god and dismissed it or they never got around to it at all.

    I was approached by a Sister Bartholomew while in my driveway a few years ago. She turned out to be a missionary from Utah, a couple thousand miles away. She could have ruined my chances for theistic purity if my parents hadn't been so damn religious.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  62. #562  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    For what it is worth....from the Freethinker (I don't subscribe by the way) comes this interesting tidbit.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  63. #563  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I don't understand this:
    He would not tell anyone about his atheism for another 19 years; when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact.”
    He was still the same guy they had known for 19 years. How absurd.
     

  64. #564  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Hmmmmm....the pure theist may be rarer than rare.

    I thought this was kind of cool. Not sure of how truthful it may be. From Wiki: History of Atheism

    ...... certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.

    That is certainly worth further investigation.
    The penchant for certain theistic religions to spread the word, add nomadism, and it could very well be that there may have been pockets of atheistic societies in the world at one time. Each one would have had the chance to develop a belief in a god on their own. The aforementioned pygmies, if the Wiki report is true, may very well have thought of a god and dismissed it or they never got around to it at all.

    I was approached by a Sister Bartholomew while in my driveway a few years ago. She turned out to be a missionary from Utah, a couple thousand miles away. She could have ruined my chances for theistic purity if my parents hadn't been so damn religious.
    I got lucky. Apparently my mother is far more religious than she ever openly displayed to me growing up. She only ever passively mentioned god but never seemed too passionate about it. But when I revealed to her that I was atheist now she had a very clear expression of being broken-hearted and worried for me. I had never seen her show concern for people's opinions on faith before. It struck me as very odd considering she never actively taught religious belief to us herself. I voluntarily went to church and I always felt I was "allowed" to go rather than made to go. My great grandmother on the other hand, who had a great deal of influence on my upbringing was quite the fundamentalist. And I adored her. She was the biggest racist, sexist, homophobe on the planet. She made Anne Coulter look like a hippy liberal. But I adored her because she was granny and she gave me sugar sprinkled orange slices and spaghetti o's and spanked my sister but not me. What wasn't to love there? A child's perspective, being the spoiled favorite grandchild, meant she was the all knowing most perfect adult in the world.

    Still my mother doesn't berate me over my stance on faith and I don't criticize her for hers. Even my former fundy sister and I are getting along fine now(now that she has suffered the horrible abuses dished out to her when her son came out of the closet and she didn't condone having him exorcized of his gay demons). She has relaxed her views on religion (still believing in Jesus but not the church) and appreciates my position even if she disagrees with it. We all get along fine. Though my granny would be rolling in her grave if such a thing were possible. After all my sister and I both have biracial and non-heterosexual children that we refuse to stop loving.

    I still love my granny because she had the mindset of her time and she was only acting on what she had been taught. Luckily for me, she wasn't the only influence in my life. But I can perceive her now with a more honest POV. She, by comparison of today's social standards, was a mean bitter hateful woman on many levels, but still capable of showing love, kindness, and compassion on a daily basis.

    Anyway, back to the OP. It would be interesting to find some pygmy history if there is any collective written history from their own POV. Or even oral traditions passed down. I'm sure if we dig around we can find something. If not, gotta get my passport updated so I can go to Africa and hang out with little people. Neverfly calm down... its not like that.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  65. #565  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    As "purity" (freedom from indoctrination) is a factor in this discussion, perhaps we can also introduce the term "cleansing".

    Church pastors become atheists | News - Home

    The Clergy Project - Home Page
     

  66. #566  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    And IMO, the following explains the unsurmountable obstacles encountered by theists, there is no authoritative reference to truth and purity.

    First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me - Analysis of the First Commandment

    Even the statement "thou shalt not have any false gods before me" does not explain how one might recognize a false god from a good god. Failure and guilt are built in phychological objectives. You cannot win, in any way, and what's even worse, you cannot change your mind or yield to practical reason.
    Last edited by Write4U; December 15th, 2012 at 04:27 AM.
     

  67. #567  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    there have been a flurry of PMs spinning out from this thread
    .......
    'tain't why I hang out here
    ........
    open freewheeling discussion about what we know, feel, suspect, intuit......etc...
    about the subject at hand is what I hope will help us all to be better people and more informed
    Knowledge, for me, has always represented the freedom of an informed mind
    That is what I wish to share.
    ..............
    The dangerous thing about intelligent people, is that we all fall into the trap of thinking that we are the best informed,
    And "right" about just about damned near everything.
    Then, Id and Ego rear their putrifying heads with great gaping slobbering jaws, dripping of blood and gore, trying to engulf all in a struggle of wills instead of a sharing of knowledge.

    kinda antipodal to what i desire.

    <snip>
    transcript of PM deleted
    unless you have the explicit permission of the other party to divulge the content of a PM, this content must stay private
    </snip>

    lighten up dude
    I tried to avoid getting into how I came to be a theist for a long time
    I finally decided that if i wished to continue in that thread, I would have to be more specific
    about how i viewed my own theism
    and how i got there
    If I actually knew a short cut, I'd have shared it
    and you kept insisting that I "enlighten you"
    which I see as a complete impossibility.
    You studied to become a preacher?
    which faith?
    did you learn anything worth sharing?
    why haven't you shared?

    By GOD, even if we're wrong, lets go ahead and share what we think, know, feel, suspect, intuit......etc...
    and
    Get on with helping each other to become more enlightened beings
    share your struggles
    share your fears
    share your attempts that seemed to have come to "dead ends"
    share your victories and losses

    or
    everyone grab some bats, and we'll meet in the alley and leave some bumps in the road for the next hapless fool that drives there?
    ........................
    go bo diddly
    " the night was dark , the sky was blue
    and down the alley the ice wagon flew
    hit a bump and I heard a scream
    everybody listen to me
    you shoulda heard what i seen"

    who do you love?
    ...
    ...
    Last edited by marnixR; December 15th, 2012 at 03:04 PM. Reason: transcript of PM deleted
     

  68. #568  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    And IMO, the following explains the unsurmountable obstacles encountered by theists, there is no authoritative reference to truth and purity.

    First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me - Analysis of the First Commandment

    Even the statement "thou shalt not have any false gods before me" does not explain how one might recognize a false god from a good god. Failure and guilt are built in phychological objectives. You cannot win, in any way, and what's even worse, you cannot change your mind or yield to practical reason.
    If I actually knew what (a?) god was, that would make sense to me.
    As I see it, it seems to be a way of doing what the prophet muhammad was good at,
    being an iconoclast in a move to unify a disperate tribal people.

    (and, it almost worked)
     

  69. #569  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    ... how one might recognize a false god from a good god
    Its a very early decision, I cant remember how old I was when I made up my mind:
    If it looks like god it is NOT god. Later I saw something similar:
    To a mouse cheese is cheese, thats why a trap works.
     

  70. #570  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    ... how one might recognize a false god from a good god
    Its a very early decision, I cant remember how old I was when I made up my mind:
    If it looks like god it is NOT god. Later I saw something similar:
    To a mouse cheese is cheese, thats why a trap works.
    ergo, my earlier caveats:
    eschew faith
    eschew beleif
    open your mind
    close your eyes
    and learn to see

    we all get into these traps
    and most likely are still inside some of them

    ................
    as/re: carlos castaneda
    "polish the bubble of the tonal"
    ...........
    counterpoint
    5th patriarch, founder of the chan school of sudden enlightenment, in response to a poem admonishing the monks to polish the mirror of defiling dust
    "since there's never been a single thing,
    wherethen is defiling dust to cling"
     

  71. #571  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    As "purity" (freedom from indoctrination) is a factor in this discussion, perhaps we can also introduce the term "cleansing".

    Church pastors become atheists | News - Home

    The Clergy Project - Home Page
    I can relate to this. It's been my observation that a majority of American Christians have never actually read the Bible for themselves. They depend on their pastors, if they even bother to go to church, to tell them what it says. And pastors are far more careful to present the message as coherantly as possible so that it makes sense to people. Because if they don't force it to make sense, by leaving out details or distorting what is actually said or presenting things out of context or by flat out stating that the commandments are only a parable or riddle of some kind, then the majority of those listening would walk out in disgust. People are lazy when it come to faith. I don't know if it is because they fear losing faith if they actually look into it, or if they don't really believe in the first place and only see faith as justification for elevating themselves over others. Or some other reason that hasn't bonked me on the head like an onion. But the sad outcome is that you have countless people thinking that they believe in every last word of a book they have never actually read. This is the crux of what made me lose faith in Christianity.

    I was a devout Christian up until about 24 years old. I was married to a Baptist Minister and as such it was my duty to conduct bible study every Wednesday night. Well I am the sort of person that takes my duties very seriously and so I started reading the bible very carefully with the intent to understand the very words of it. Well I didn't make it through Genesis before I started seeing inconsistencies within itself and between what was written vs what the majority of pastors actually teach. But I pressed on and after reading the entire bible I was devastated at what I had read and realized it had very little to do with what I had been raised and taught to believe was true about God and biblical history. And that the god described in the bible was no better or different than the ancient mythical gods of Greek and Roman mythology. That did not make me atheist though. I simply concluded that the bible could not be from god. So I started studying other religions, adopting other religions (prematurely as I had Christianity) and eventually came to the conclusion that the whole idea of god was a man made concept and therefor wasn't likely to be true. I reevaluated my reasonings for believing in a creator and found they were built on faulty logic. That is when I became an atheist. Coming to know myself better, and understand how my own mind works, sometimes against me, is what led me to realize that the god concept was a fantasy constructed by me in order to justify other preconceived notions of all sorts of things in my life, such as significance of self, superiority to others, and immortality.
    KALSTER, MrMojo1 and sculptor like this.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  72. #572  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    [QUOTE=Neverfly;376546] ... I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer. ... QUOTE]

    neverfly
    maybe it'd be fitting for you to talk about this a tad more
     

  73. #573  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    neverfly
    maybe it'd be fitting for you to talk about this a tad more
    I see no need to. I'd prefer to stick to the topic at hand.
     

  74. #574  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    It just occurred to me, that without the trappings of religion, the institution of "spiritual heavens" (churches) but with "sages" instead of ministers, pastors, priests, shepherds, and what-have-you.
    Just gathering places where ethics and morals are discussed and debated. Even on-line in places like The Science Forum.............
    sculptor likes this.
     

  75. #575  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    neverfly
    maybe it'd be fitting for you to talk about this a tad more
    I see no need to. I'd prefer to stick to the topic at hand.
    maybe not for you, then
    but we may all profit from your first hand knowledge
    even
    if it's simple stories like sweeny,queenie,cherry and the mp.

    your previous proximity places you in a position not many have had.
    share
     

  76. #576  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    It just occurred to me, that without the trappings of religion, the institution of "spiritual heavens" (churches) but with "sages" instead of ministers, pastors, priests, shepherds, and what-have-you.
    Just gathering places where ethics and morals are discussed and debated. Even on-line in places like The Science Forum.............
    which is what adelady found there
     

  77. #577  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    It just occurred to me, that without the trappings of religion, the institution of "spiritual heavens" (churches) but with "sages" instead of ministers, pastors, priests, shepherds, and what-have-you.
    Just gathering places where ethics and morals are discussed and debated. Even on-line in places like The Science Forum.............
    True but the religious institutions also incorporate a very important difference. They incorporate the idea of an unquestionable, unchallengeable, independent authority. In TSF everything is questionable and challenge-able and there is no independent authority on anything.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  78. #578  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    True but the religious institutions also incorporate a very important difference. They incorporate the idea of an unquestionable, unchallengeable, independent authority. In TSF everything is questionable and challenge-able and there is no independent authority on anything.
    You do remember that I challenged a narrowminded/smallminded baptist chaplain once
    chalenging "authority" ain't no big thing for a free mind
    ..........................
    ps
    blech picture
    bad
    bad
    bad
    yuck
     

  79. #579  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    TG......
     

  80. #580  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  81. #581  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
     

  82. #582  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
    I thought that was what you meant but I didn't want to assume anything. lol.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  83. #583  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
    I thought that was what you meant but I didn't want to assume anything. lol.
    Of course his' was "a somewhat different kind of religion".
     

  84. #584  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
    I thought that was what you meant but I didn't want to assume anything. lol.
    Of course his' was "a somewhat different kind of religion".
    Very true, considering I am not very familiar with Einstein or his work. I only think of big white hair and his funny accent.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  85. #585  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
    I thought that was what you meant but I didn't want to assume anything. lol.
    Of course his' was "a somewhat different kind of religion".
    Very true, considering I am not very familiar with Einstein or his work. I only think of big white hair and his funny accent.
    In that case.......stay away from Einstein........he is an addictive drug.............
     

  86. #586  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    TG......
    You lost me....

    Lol,..............Thank God for Einstein.........
    I thought that was what you meant but I didn't want to assume anything. lol.
    Of course his' was "a somewhat different kind of religion".
    Very true, considering I am not very familiar with Einstein or his work. I only think of big white hair and his funny accent.
    In that case.......stay away from Einstein........he is an addictive drug.............
    Just like World of Warcraft.... I want to play that game but I am terrified of becoming addicted to it. .... the things I concern myself with sometimes...
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  87. #587  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    When I was seven I read a book on Einstein and that was for me equal to a spiritual revelation.

    The concept of relativity is so elegant in its simplicity, that one cannot help but see reality from a totally different perspective.

    The book had a a little riddle.

    two musicians standing alongside a railroad some distance apart. Between them a train is moving, whistle blowing.
    Later the two men meet and one asks, did you hear that new train whistle...it was in the key of Dflat. The other answers, yes I heard it loud and clear, but it was in the key of Dsharp.
    Who is correct and who is lying?

    For each observer relative realities yielded totally different results. Thus each was telling the truth and each was incorrect. To an observer ON the train the whistle would have been accurately heard at D.
    Last edited by Write4U; December 15th, 2012 at 10:46 PM.
     

  88. #588  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Anyway, back to the OP. It would be interesting to find some pygmy history if there is any collective written history from their own POV. Or even oral traditions passed down. I'm sure if we dig around we can find something. If not, gotta get my passport updated so I can go to Africa and hang out with little people. Neverfly calm down... its not like that.
    Finding anything on the atheist pygmy society is tough but I'll keep looking. While doing so I ran into a couple of more potential atheistic societies, or at least those with no supreme being. I'm a native of Canada yet I didn't realize that our own Inuit people of the north do not have a supreme being/creator .....In the words of Inuit writer Rachel Attituq

    "The Inuit cosmos is ruled by no one. There are no divine mother and father figures. There are no wind gods and solar creators."

    Inuits however, believe in a soul which fills the most important role of their religious beliefs.

    I also accidentally stumbled upon a site that mentioned the Tasmanian aboriginal, prior to their extinction at he hands of European settlers not too long ago, were also a people without a supreme being belief. However, like everything else that pertains to an atheist society, finding any information is proving scant. Maybe some of our 'down under' members could shed some light on the validity of this non-belief claim.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
     

  89. #589  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Anyway, back to the OP. It would be interesting to find some pygmy history if there is any collective written history from their own POV. Or even oral traditions passed down. I'm sure if we dig around we can find something. If not, gotta get my passport updated so I can go to Africa and hang out with little people. Neverfly calm down... its not like that.
    Finding anything on the atheist pygmy society is tough but I'll keep looking. While doing so I ran into a couple of more potential atheistic societies, or at least those with no supreme being. I'm a native of Canada yet I didn't realize that our own Inuit people of the north do not have a supreme being/creator .....In the words of Inuit writer Rachel Attituq

    "The Inuit cosmos is ruled by no one. There are no divine mother and father figures. There are no wind gods and solar creators."

    Inuits however, believe in a soul which fills the most important role of their religious beliefs.

    I also accidentally stumbled upon a site that mentioned the Tasmanian aboriginal, prior to their extinction at he hands of European settlers not too long ago, were also a people without a supreme being belief. However, like everything else that pertains to an atheist society, finding any information is proving scant. Maybe some of our 'down under' members could shed some light on the validity of this non-belief claim.
    Some theists may argue that if they had acknowledged a creator, then that creator would not have allowed them to be wiped out as a society. Our brains are very very clever at finding ways to validate our own perceived supremacy.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
     

  90. #590  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I read a book called the forest people
    about the authors travels with the pygmys
    no mention even of animism(if memory serves)

    though(if memory serves) there were certain taboos
     

  91. #591  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ... Evolution is random changes that either assist or inhibit or have no effect on survival. There is no design, intelligent guidance or supernatural interference in it. ... .
    Which wholly and (most likely inacurately) completely discounts the theories of epigenetics

    Randomness is only an assumption based on a limited perspective
    randomness may have a role to play, but ain't(most likely) the only mechanism at work

    I leave preponderance to another generation
    Whether it's the only one or not- the basic question is this:

    Why does millions of years pass for genetic change, why is it trial and error, why is 99% of all species that ever lived extinct?
    (1)Why does millions of years pass for genetic change?
    When Earth was cool enough for life to exist,
    life appears to have appeared almost instantly.
    Then it took two billion years for life to evolve complexity...
    It appears easier to invent life from scratch then to improve upon it?
    (2) What mechanisms are at work?
    I see two: "Trial &error" and the experimental situation.
    Together "the mechanisms" make prediction possible.
    But THAT does not prove conscious pre-design.
    I dunno how sculptor sphinx... (exp: thinks > thinkx > sphinx > creates enigma)
    but I wont assume he believes in fairy tales.
     

  92. #592  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    conscious
    is a real tricky concept
    long ago and far away, I got up, and led the squad to a safer nesting place, then went back to sleep
    (according to my fellows)
    the trick is, I never actually woke up (and had no memory of the action)
    but they all thought I was conscious

    I believe in/see and know pattern
    I believe in and know progress within pattern

    has the shared co-evolutionary biom awakened?
    Is it moving and changing while still sleeping?
    does it have intent?
    is it aware?
    Is the universe the creator of pattern
    Or
    was the pattern there first, and the universe just evolved into it?
    Is our shared co-evolutionary biom the creator of it's pattern
    Or
    was the pattern there before the shared co-evolutionary biom
    and are we just evolving within that pattern?

    TAO:
    before being
    was nothingness
    before nothingness
    was the void
    before the void
    was the TAO

    TAO is the way, the path,
    If Tao is the path/ the way
    Have we the freedom to move beyond(outside of) the path?
    Can we create our own path?
    Or,
    Are we constrained within that path and pattern?
     

  93. #593  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I have reported your post for being insulting, as well as all your other insults of the thread. Also for your demands to know personal information that is none of your business and has nothing to do with the thread. You are not entitled to know anything about me personally. If you have a problem or suspicions about me and/or Neverfly file a report with the admin. Public forum is not the place for it. From here on out you are being put on ignore. Have a nice day.
    What a complete and utter.... fruitloop.

    I never known such slanderous bile. I've never known such a hypocritical liar. I'm proselytizing? Why is this libel allowed here admins?

    Seagypsy and Neverfly are here to back each other up. That explains the serious lack of intellectual discussion and crazy repetition earlier in this thread, it also explains the lies, twisting of facts and bare faced hypocrasy of the pair of them. I genuinely feel sorry for both of them and want to show compassion but I'm not big enough for that on this occasion.

    As for my own conduct... It has been less than great at times and I regret using language that may offend 3rd party readers, even if I am adamant that the people concerned fully deserved the treatment they recieved, it is no excuse for me to subject others to pettyness or to allow myself to be manipulated into being less than gracefull. I maintain that I have been rude only in retaliation, even then I have been more moderate than the two who have ganged up and conspired to spread libel and mistruth against me and others who they percieve as theists and against their own blatant anti theist proselytism. I just want you all to know that I will try harder to keep my comments positive and not allow my own behaviour to be dragged down by the behaviour of others.


    There was no mistake Markus, these two are on a mission to smear the names of theists... but cannot own up to it. Smoke and mirrors is their prefered method. I am disapointed that you will accept the nonsense about me misinterpreting what neverfly said. I realise you probably want to make them feel better and start behaving, much like a parent with a naughty child, but really... this childish, petulant rubbish shouldn't be encouraged at all.

    That said... The matter is closed. I will not speak to liars or narks.

    Thanks for letting me have a final say on the matter. I imagine somebody might pipe up with an opinion on what I have said in this post... If that happens I will prove what I said about not wanting to set a bad example, by ignoring any anti logic heading my way.
     

  94. #594  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    why is it QFU
    that I have the sneaking suspicion that this won't be the final say?

    neverfly claims:
    I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer.
    but refuses to discuss it
    must be one helluv an embarrasment there?
    Do you think it involved sexual perversions?

    absent knowledge,
    one can only speculate
    into the darkness
    of the recesses of the human mind

    censorship is the worst of all evil
    and self censorship is the worst of the worst
     

  95. #595  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    why is it QFU
    that I have the sneaking suspicion that this won't be the final say?
    Because probability dictates that it will not be. However, I will not answer to any illogical or imature comments. I will only respond to positive and honest comments from here on. This is my final say, as far as i'm concerned it is THE final say.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    neverfly claims:
    I was in the ministry years ago and a devout believer.
    but refuses to discuss it
    must be one helluv an embarrasment there?
    Do you think it involved sexual perversions?
    I see no reason to beleive a word written by those fingers. Lies, petulance and hypocrasy are all to evident throughout the thread.

    I agree with you though... it might be interesting. The fact Neverfly said he didn't want to discuss his previous theism because he... what was it? he prefers to stick to the subject at hand did he say?... suggests to me that there are issues with cognitive functioning. It's just another example of how he tries to avoid open and honest discussion by using completely flawed reasoning. I have never seen a thread that would be more apt for discussing theism! but i'm sure they would have some other deceitful logic as to why their own previous faith doesn't relate to the subject.

    It's like Seagypsy... I asked her if she is friends with Neverfly outside the science forum... she refused to answer with the truth, said i'm invading her privacy by asking in public and reported me to the admin. It's half funny, half tragic. It certainly does seem to be a symptom of some kind of pathological past, beyond that I would not like to speculate at all.
    I take the being put on ignore as a compliment though, I geuss it means my questions were difficult to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    absent knowledge,
    one can only speculate
    into the darkness
    of the recesses of the human mind
    Be carefull good sir, they say no man has delved into the darkest of regions and returned unscathed.

    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    censorship is the worst of all evil
    and self censorship is the worst of the worst
    When you feel like swearing at somebody, becuase you cannot beleive what they say to be genuine and sincere... then it is you who is made to look rude and unreasonable in the eyes of people who do not understand the need for swearing and rudeness. Therefor I admit that I do censor myself from time to time. I don't believe it is good that I do it, I beleive the blunt truth is the best policy, but I don't want anybody to think less of me, so I bite my tongue... difficult though it is.
     

  96. #596  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    ... ...
    When you feel like swearing at somebody, becuase you cannot beleive what they say to be genuine and sincere... then it is you who is made to look rude and unreasonable in the eyes of people who do not understand the need for swearing and rudeness. Therefor I admit that I do censor myself from time to time. I don't believe it is good that I do it, I beleive the blunt truth is the best policy, but I don't want anybody to think less of me, so I bite my tongue... difficult though it is.
    More'n one way to skin a cat dad.
    Laughing at lies helps,
    or turning to someone else and saying
    "And, if you believe that, I have some land in florida that I know you're gonna love. It is by an inland waterway on a soon to be developed olympic sized glof course"
     

  97. #597  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    conscious
    is a real tricky concept
    long ago and far away, I got up, and led the squad to a safer nesting place, then went back to sleep
    (according to my fellows)
    the trick is, I never actually woke up (and had no memory of the action)
    but they all thought I was conscious

    I believe in/see and know pattern
    I believe in and know progress within pattern

    has the shared co-evolutionary biom awakened?
    Is it moving and changing while still sleeping?
    does it have intent?
    is it aware?
    Is the universe the creator of pattern
    I think yours is a constricted question:
    Isnt it nonsense to search for ways to answer it?
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    [


    Or
    was the pattern there first, and the universe just evolved into it?
    Is our shared co-evolutionary biom the creator of it's pattern
    Or
    was the pattern there before the shared co-evolutionary biom
    and are we just evolving within that pattern?

    TAO:
    before being
    was nothingness
    before nothingness
    was the void
    before the void
    was the TAO

    TAO is the way, the path,
    If Tao is the path/ the way
    Have we the freedom to move beyond(outside of) the path?
    Can we create our own path?
    Or,
    Are we constrained within that path and pattern?
    At the moment I really dont care...those patterns are far away.
    There might be closer constrainments... do you notice any?
     

  98. #598  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    pattern is all we have
     

  99. #599  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    More'n one way to skin a cat dad.
    Laughing at lies helps,
    Yes indeed it does. In fact I have had some good laughs during this thread, some genuine and hearty laughs.

    I like to tell it how I see it... but when you have to tell it over and over, then it starts to make me look bad too... so laughing is the best policy.

    Though there really is nothing funny about such ignoramuses trying to influence the way people think, with such closed minded opinions and ill considered statements.

    Atheistic bigotry is really no laughing matter... even if atheist bigots are funny in themselves. No disrespect to all you non bigoted Atheists.

    There is a reason that imtheism isn't in the dictionary... it's becuase no sane or intelligent person would ever admit to being an imtheist, imo. Admitting imtheism is admitting that you are guilty of the same bigotry, simplisticness, lack of critical thinking and irrationality that you wish to accuse theists of. But thats just my opinion on the matter. I don't beleive I have said anything to encourage or discourage theism, except I do think people should be free to believe whatever they want... as long as they don't choose to beleive that their beleifs are superior to the beleifs of others, or that this makes them superior to others. As that would clearly be a delusion that has gone too far.

    I told you earlier I wish you good luck trying to get to the bottom of a certain persons position. It has since then become even more evident that an honest discussion is far from the number one priority of certain members of TSF. Yes dear sculptor, it was sarcasm, you will not get into the psyche of a pathological liar my friend. Count it as a blessing, for there are somethings it is best if we are not exposed to directly.

     

  100. #600  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ok, this thread has devolved into nothing more than accusations and acerbic vitriol being flung every which way. Nothing good is coming of this. I am closing it.

    While a number of you are guilty of this, QFY should stop patting himself on the back for constraining himself. If this is constraining yourself, then you are walking on a wonky tightrope. Be careful you don't fall off. Again. Bad show.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. A rare Scientific question from westwind.
    By westwind in forum Biology
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: December 13th, 2012, 09:30 PM
  2. Rare Wolf Spider
    By jsloan in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 13th, 2011, 02:26 AM
  3. The Theist Challange
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: April 6th, 2009, 07:19 PM
  4. I am now... an Anti-Theist
    By verzen in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 18th, 2008, 12:58 AM
  5. Rare Einstein film discoverd
    By in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 27th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •