Poll
Question:
Which of the following best describes what you Actually Believe about the Deity?
Option 1: I worship some variation of the Christian / Jewish / Muslim God
Option 2: Buddhist / Taoist / Eastern somethingorother
Option 3: Agnostic - I couldn't possibly know
Option 4: Atheist - I believe in no gods
Option 5: I believe in Eris as an entity but do not follow other Gods
Option 6: I believe Eris is one of many Gods
Option 7: I prefer not to define myself
Option 8: I don't give a fuck about all that stuff
Option 9: Something else not on this list
This is fodder for something I'm brewing about the beliefs of "irreligious" people (Church of Google, Pastafarians, Discordians, Subgenii, Cthulhu sect, etc) I'd like to post some variation of this poll in different irreligious forums and see how it compares to our results. I'll tell you my hypothesis later.
If I'm missing poll options, let me know.
Agnostic, verging on atheism. I think gods don't exist, but I don't Really Really Truthfully Know (100%) if that is the case.
I also see gods as useful symbols or metaphors, depending on context and deployment.
Aww, no Model Agnostic? ;-)
Actually, you may want to include something along the Jung/Campbell line... "God's may not exist but they're a useful archetype..." or something like it?
100% my own definition of agnostic, that is to say I couldn't possibly know, but if someone offered proof one way or the other I still wouldn't give a rats ass.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 03:34:39 PM
Aww, no Model Agnostic? ;-)
There's an agnostic option - there's already too many options without taking the analytical knife to agnosticism :p
QuoteActually, you may want to include something along the Jung/Campbell line... "God's may not exist but they're a useful archetype..." or something like it?
I
think that falls under atheism. If we make
that cut, we've also gotta make a lot of cuts like, "I'm christian but I don't go to church", or "Wiccan with Discordian leanings" etc etc
you're missing pantheism...
I waver between atheism and agnosticism most of the time.
Sometimes, though...
while I recognize the technical truth of not ever REALLY being able to KNOW anything, there is not one single thing I can think of that I think is LESS likely than an actual deity actually existing.
there is no God, there are no Gods, you are worm dirt and will not come back, deal with it and get on with your life.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
QuoteActually, you may want to include something along the Jung/Campbell line... "God's may not exist but they're a useful archetype..." or something like it?
I think that falls under atheism. If we make that cut, we've also gotta make a lot of cuts like, "I'm christian but I don't go to church", or "Wiccan with Discordian leanings" etc etc
Agreed. Its either an atheistic or agnostic position.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 03:34:39 PM
Aww, no Model Agnostic? ;-)
There's an agnostic option - there's already too many options without taking the analytical knife to agnosticism :p
QuoteActually, you may want to include something along the Jung/Campbell line... "God's may not exist but they're a useful archetype..." or something like it?
I think that falls under atheism. If we make that cut, we've also gotta make a lot of cuts like, "I'm christian but I don't go to church", or "Wiccan with Discordian leanings" etc etc
:argh!:
Agnostic is not Model Agnostic
I would also say that neither Jung or Campbell seemed particularly atheistic. They just spoke of symbols, not the nonexistence of deities that might be behind those symbols.
But... point taken. I'll answer other ;-)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 21, 2008, 03:46:26 PM
while I recognize the technical truth of not ever REALLY being able to KNOW anything, there is not one single thing I can think of that I think is LESS likely than an actual deity actually existing.
Pretty much. I can just about accept Deism (Great Architect, Unmoved Mover) as a possibility, slight though it may be, but any named religion or god is getting into the territory of impossiblity of existence.
I want to advise people to steer away from the "other" option if another item on the list is CLOSEST to your beliefs. Like if you're somewhere between atheism and agnosticism, pick one.
I am positive that I cannot offer anyone a box to check which perfectly matches their beliefs. But come on, these boxes are pretty wide.
in what category goes:
i am my own god?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:55:46 PM
I want to advise people to steer away from the "other" option if another item on the list is CLOSEST to your beliefs. Like if you're somewhere between atheism and agnosticism, pick one.
I am positive that I cannot offer anyone a box to check which perfectly matches their beliefs. But come on, these boxes are pretty wide.
But... but...
what about "All of the Above"? ;-)
I still hold we are the ultimate mindfucks of the gods and they stir shit up then sit back and watch us fuck it up even more! :lulz:
Is there any particular reason for you being a prick today Rata? Did Cram say something in order for you to be a continual asswipe on his thread?
How about, "What ever is most useful to me at the moment?"
Or does that fall into the Agnostic category?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:55:46 PM
I want to advise people to steer away from the "other" option if another item on the list is CLOSEST to your beliefs. ...But come on, these boxes are pretty wide.
I haven't clicked a box yet.
still wondering where you would put pantheism.
I don't think that's a fine distinction of one of the other categories. seems to not fit your list, except the 'other'...
[15:00] <&Payne> Life: Hilarious but unusable
[15:04] <@Cram> Okay so I want to start a poll
[15:04] <@Cram> which asks people what their OMG REAL beliefs are---
[15:04] <&Payne> oh dear
[15:04] <@Cram> here are the options so far - and I'm looking for input to cover all the bases
[15:04] <&Payne> I have a bad feeling about this
[15:04] <@Cram> I worship some variation of the Christian / Jewish / Muslim God
[15:05] <@Cram> Agnostic - I couldn't possibly know
[15:05] <@Cram> Atheist - no gods
[15:05] <@Cram> I Worship Eris specifically
[15:05] <@Cram> Eris is one Goddess in the pantheon I follow
[15:05] <@Cram> Prefer not to define myself
[15:05] <@Cram> END LIST
[15:05] <&Payne> hmmmm
[15:05] <@Cram> Am I missing anything?
[15:05] <&Payne> Abrahamic for the first one
[15:05] <@Cram> This is fodder for a rant I'm brewing about the beliefs of "irreligious" people (CoG, pastafarians, discordians, subgenii, etc)
[15:06] <&Payne> Hinduism/Buddhism/ other eastern religion
[15:06] <@Cram> ooh good spot
[15:06] <&Payne> also, gods/goddesses as symbols rather than as full blown deities
[15:06] <@Cram> Wouldn't that be agnostic?
[15:07] <&Payne> for example, some people hold to what Eris represents instead of Eris as a goddess
[15:07] <&Payne> well, I dunno, depends on which interpretation of agnostic you go for
[15:08] <@Cram> fair enough
[15:08] <&Payne> whether you go for "watered down atheist" or "couldn't really give a fuck if the gods are real or not"
[15:08] <&Payne> and myriad other ways to interpret it
[15:08] <@Cram> hahahah
[15:08] <&Payne> got to love semantics
[15:09] <&Payne> I guess what I mean is where and how your belief is manifested, and whether or not it is religious in nature
[15:10] <&Payne> regarding Eris as an archetype for "WOoowoowoOWOoWo [scary ghost noises] weird shit going down" isn't really agnosticism in my view
[15:11] <@Cram> lol
[15:12] <&Payne> so, to boil it down as a poll option, "I acknowledge what Eris represents, but do not worship her in any way"
[15:12] <&Payne> something like that
[15:15] <@Cram> hm, well the question is about what you actually believe - so the relevant part of that answer is "I don't worship anybody"
[15:15] <&Payne> belief |= worship
[15:15] <@Cram> mm, good point
[15:17] <@Cram> This is tough!
[15:17] <&Payne> yes, but a good discussion, I feel
[15:17] <@Cram> Because I have a very hard time conceputalizing / articulating my beliefs - so I don't think I fit anywhere on that list
[15:17] <&Payne> so it should be worth it
[15:17] <&Payne> thing with belief is usually it falls outside boxes
[15:19] <@Cram> I'm wondering if my premise is bunk --
[15:19] <@Cram> because I'm thinking about it now, and asking about RELIGION might be kind of off-base, because a lot of people are attracted to Discordia for non-religious reasons
[15:19] <@Cram> like for me, it's mostly an /excuse/ :-P
[15:20] <&Payne> seems a lot of people who have un-found religion are people who congregate at PD
[15:20] <&Payne> Ratatosk, for example, dropped the JW-ism, and is now a no-good hippie
[15:20] <@Cram> lol
[15:21] <&Payne> maybe it's not so much belief as a whole, but evolution of ones beliefs that is interesting here?
[15:21] <@Cram> yeah
[15:21] <@Cram> good point
[15:23] <&Payne> zomg, I just realised I'm having a srs discussion again!
[15:23] <&Payne> :O
[15:23] <@Cram> hahahah
[15:24] <@Cram> Alright, what would the options be for THAT poll?
[15:24] <&Payne> hmmm
[15:24] <&Payne> tricky
[15:24] <@Cram> "How did you arrive at your current beliefs (or lack thereof)?"
[15:25] <@Cram> --raised religious, now am ______?
[15:25] <@Cram> Eh, I have a feeling a question like that can't be covered in a simple poll
[15:25] <&Payne> well, not in one poll, certainly
[15:26] <&Payne> you'd need to have one that explored peoples previous belief or faith structure, and what form that took, and a secondary one that explored their current belief or faith structure and what form that takes
[15:27] <&Payne> then some kind of post about "how you feel this evolution has taken place"
[15:29] <&Payne> it could be a gradual awakening, a sudden awakening (personal apocalypse), a bastardisation of previous views, a removal of all faith and belief in something "greater" - replaced with a more secular and cynical-humanist view
[15:29] <&Payne> I dunno
[15:30] <@Cram> That's a really good dissection
[15:31] <&Payne> belief is generally an organic type of thing and is hard to define because it slips into the cracks and and gaps left between our false compartmentalisation of personality, the "logical" boxes we try to split ourselves and others up in to
[15:34] <&Payne> heh, I'm getting onto shrapnel again
[15:34] <&Payne> STOP ME IF YOU CAN
[15:40] <&Payne> I may have to do a write up based on this discussion as well, you know
[15:40] <&Payne> we can vie for honour on the battlefield of our rants!
[15:40] <&Payne> HAVE AT YOU!
[15:43] <@Cram> LOL
..........................
[15:47] <&Payne> trust PD to get wound up about which boxes you offer them
[15:47] <&Payne> it's a simple enough question, with big enough boxes that one of them will largely offer them a good compromise
[15:48] <&Payne> trust Ratatosk to lead the charge in not being offered the exact box he wanted
[15:48] <@Cram> lol
[15:49] <&Payne> should maybe post this IRC discussion
[15:49] <&Payne> as it is relevent
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 04:03:02 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:55:46 PM
I want to advise people to steer away from the "other" option if another item on the list is CLOSEST to your beliefs. ...But come on, these boxes are pretty wide.
I haven't clicked a box yet.
still wondering where you would put pantheism.
I don't think that's a fine distinction of one of the other categories. seems to not fit your list, except the 'other'...
Given the options, I think pantheism is a pretty good candidate for "other".
Oh, another "sociological experiment."
:boring:
:lulz:
when we've got some data, I'll post links to the threads I've started at other irreligious forums. I think you'll find it interesting.
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
I think pantheism is covered by "I worship Eris among many other gods", even if you don't actually worship Eris.
also, Rat, you weren't being an asshole, just a dink. Surely you can figure out which of those works best in a general sense for the purposes of helping your fellow man and his silly research project which has already been either a horrible success or a wonderful failure.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when Cram said "If I'm missing poll options, let me know." he meant "If you offer any other options, you're a dick". If I'd ranted about it for multiple posts about how wrong it was or how evil or how stupid cram was... then I'd see your point. As it is, I disagree that I was being a dick. As soon as Cram said "I don't want to get that granular", I added my vote to the poll. Should I just smile and nod from now on, rather than actually say anything?
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when Cram said "If I'm missing poll options, let me know." he meant "If you offer any other options, you're a dick". If I'd ranted about it for multiple posts about how wrong it was or how evil or how stupid cram was... then I'd see your point. As it is, I disagree that I was being a dick. As soon as Cram said "I don't want to get that granular", I added my vote to the poll. Should I just smile and nod from now on, rather than actually say anything?
Oh, you weren't arguing in bad faith and just for the sake of it?
Makes a first.
I don't really believe in anything, but since I'm not positive that god(s) doesn't exist, I generally call myself agnostic. Or, since I'm dragged to church on Christmas Eve and Easter, a non-practicing Catholic; however, that tends to imply that I agree with Catholic views and values, which is incorrect. I guess I don't know what I believe. :?
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when Cram said "If I'm missing poll options, let me know." he meant "If you offer any other options, you're a dick". If I'd ranted about it for multiple posts about how wrong it was or how evil or how stupid cram was... then I'd see your point. As it is, I disagree that I was being a dick. As soon as Cram said "I don't want to get that granular", I added my vote to the poll. Should I just smile and nod from now on, rather than actually say anything?
Oh, you weren't arguing in bad faith and just for the sake of it?
Makes a first.
No, I was not arguing in bad faith, just for the sake of it. I personally think there's a fundamental difference between atheism, agnosticism and model agnosticism. To wit, Agnostics and Atheists make observations about their view of the question of God. Model Agnosticism makes observations about views on concepts of belief...
More like a metasystem than a system... does that make sense?
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/threadjack.jpg)
Basically, I've been thinking about the growing category of "irreligious" people. More "joke" religions (like the Church of Google, or Tarvu-ism (http://www.tarvu.com)) are showing up every day. To some extent, they're silly jokes. But many of them have, at their core, people who buy into that (perhaps satirical) worldview.
I would distinguish these people's beliefs from actual religious beliefs - I'm using that word "irreligious", because it's tongue in cheek, but it represents a serious point. For example, the FSM spags are all about the creation/evolution debate - few of them actually believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but they use that framework to explain the point they're trying to make. If you asked them to fill out a religious survey, what box would they check? That's what I'm exploring, and here's why:
These data will help us investigate whether the word "irreligious" is actually a good umbrella term for these things*, or if most Discordians/Pastafarians/Googlites are just atheists and agnostics in disguise.
*read: "You people" :p
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 04:52:38 PM
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/threadjack.jpg)
Basically, I've been thinking about the growing category of "irreligious" people. More "joke" religions (like the Church of Google, or Tarvu-ism (http://www.tarvu.com)) are showing up every day. To some extent, they're silly jokes. But many of them have, at their core, people who buy into that (perhaps satirical) worldview.
I would distinguish these people's beliefs from actual religious beliefs - I'm using that word "irreligious", because it's tongue in cheek, but it represents a serious point. For example, the FSM spags are all about the creation/evolution debate - few of them actually believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but they use that framework to explain the point they're trying to make. If you asked them to fill out a religious survey, what box would they check? That's what I'm exploring, and here's why:
These data will help us investigate whether the word "irreligious" is actually a good umbrella term for these things*, or if most Discordians/Pastafarians/Googlites are just atheists and agnostics in disguise.
*read: "You people" :p
My uninformed guess:
Most, but not all, Pastafarians and Googlites etc will likely lean Atheist, some will lean Agnostic and a few will claim some other system of belief.
Some, but not all, Discordians will likely lean Atheist, some will lean Agnostic and more than the above group will claim some other system of belief.
That is... if I were betting on this kind of thing ;-)
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PMWe're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
This is positively inspirational.
Behold, beings of the world, ye who stand beside me upon this, our Earth! I have partaken in a bitter herb, one which doth sprout from mine very own genitalia! Dickweed thus am I, and Dickweed ye shall become should you graze with me the Field of the Wangus!
Yet beware of imposter Dickweeds, those who claim to have feasted of mine crotch growth but have instead been engorged with a lesser substance! The Dickweed they shall neither consume nor smoke, yet smoke they shall of my Pole, such is the retribution taken upon those who have wronged me.
Oh, and I chose I prefer not to label myself. I was raised staunchly Catholic, which in spite of having shaken off for almost 10 years I can't help but revert back to if only for the purposes of language (God Damnit, Jesus Fucking Christ, etc.). Sometimes I'm Atheist in not believing anything and sometimes I think there is Something Bigger and Indescribable that We Just Aren't Capable of Understanding, Which Has No Agenda Yet Somehow Acts as Something We All Have In Common (I call this concept SBIWJACUWHNAYSASWAHIC).
Religion is like a Smorgasbord to be sampled at will.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when Cram said "If I'm missing poll options, let me know." he meant "If you offer any other options, you're a dick". If I'd ranted about it for multiple posts about how wrong it was or how evil or how stupid cram was... then I'd see your point. As it is, I disagree that I was being a dick. As soon as Cram said "I don't want to get that granular", I added my vote to the poll. Should I just smile and nod from now on, rather than actually say anything?
Oh, you weren't arguing in bad faith and just for the sake of it?
Makes a first.
No, I was not arguing in bad faith, just for the sake of it. I personally think there's a fundamental difference between atheism, agnosticism and model agnosticism. To wit, Agnostics and Atheists make observations about their view of the question of God. Model Agnosticism makes observations about views on concepts of belief...
More like a metasystem than a system... does that make sense?
In other words, you are not even explaining what you believe, but instead talking about a process which explains the "how" of belief instead of the "what".
ie; exactly what was asked about.
Well done, you are both off topic and pointlessly shit-stirring.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:02:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
I didn't mean to be an asshole... just after lots and lots of debate over the years, I don't think that my ideas fit with either of the 'a' options. I didn't intend to be an asshole and I'm sorry if it came across that way.
We're all intelligent people here, we all know roughly what we believe and what the choices we were given mean. We also have the space to give exposition below, should we feel it necessary. Your passive-aggressive whining over not having a Special Hugbox Designed Just For You (Because You're A Unique And Wondeful Snowflake) is boring. If you're going to be a dick simply because, at least be honest about it.
For example, I am a dickweed. You're talking to a dickweed. Does a cobbler not make shoes? Does a horse-trainer not train horses?
This weed in my dick; I like this weed. Why do I eat of it? Because it is my dick, and because it is bitter.
But I at least have the self-control not to let it show because a poll on the internet did not express my Special Uniquness perfectly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when Cram said "If I'm missing poll options, let me know." he meant "If you offer any other options, you're a dick". If I'd ranted about it for multiple posts about how wrong it was or how evil or how stupid cram was... then I'd see your point. As it is, I disagree that I was being a dick. As soon as Cram said "I don't want to get that granular", I added my vote to the poll. Should I just smile and nod from now on, rather than actually say anything?
Oh, you weren't arguing in bad faith and just for the sake of it?
Makes a first.
No, I was not arguing in bad faith, just for the sake of it. I personally think there's a fundamental difference between atheism, agnosticism and model agnosticism. To wit, Agnostics and Atheists make observations about their view of the question of God. Model Agnosticism makes observations about views on concepts of belief...
More like a metasystem than a system... does that make sense?
In other words, you are not even explaining what you believe, but instead talking about a process which explains the "how" of belief instead of the "what".
ie; exactly what was asked about.
Well done, you are both off topic and pointlessly shit-stirring.
Yep, that's exactly it Cain. Gosh, you're so smart.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 21, 2008, 04:25:18 PM
I think pantheism is covered by "I worship Eris among many other gods", even if you don't actually worship Eris.
perhaps you think pantheism is the affirmation of all gods? nono. it is the defining an equivalence between the universe at large and god.
also:
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:02:46 PM
Well done, you are both off topic and pointlessly shit-stirring.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/sss.jpg)
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:02:46 PM
Well done, you are both off topic and pointlessly shit-stirring.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/sss.jpg)
Bullshit. Cain isn't stirring the shit, he's pointing out someone else who is stirring shit. There is a significant difference rite thar.
There really isn't anything on the list that would incorporate possible panentheistic permutations... however broadly you would want to define the option. So I resort to "other".
But, based on some of what I have read here so far, maybe this WOULD be an appropriate option for inclusion in the list.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 05:08:39 PMYep, that's exactly it Cain. Gosh, you're so smart.
Hey Rata...why are you such a passive aggressive pansy all the fucking time?
Iptuous, blow me.
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 05:48:47 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:02:46 PM
Well done, you are both off topic and pointlessly shit-stirring.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/sss.jpg)
Bullshit. Cain isn't stirring the shit, he's pointing out someone else who is stirring shit. There is a significant difference rite thar.
Its such a shame we can't have intellectual debate here, isn't it?
Cain,
the real reason PD.com can't have the nice things.
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:54:55 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 05:08:39 PMYep, that's exactly it Cain. Gosh, you're so smart.
Hey Rata...why are you such a passive aggressive pansy all the fucking time?
Iptuous, blow me.
Well, mostly because fighting over shit like this, here, usually ends badly. So I don't want to fight with you over my comment. Cram wasn't offended, you were. Sorry you were offended... but I'm not gonna fight with you about it. WTF?
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 03:26:58 PM
Agnostic, verging on atheism. I think gods don't exist, but I don't Really Really Truthfully Know (100%) if that is the case.
I also see gods as useful symbols or metaphors, depending on context and deployment.
This is basically what I believe even though I have a reputation as more atheist than agnostic. I just like pointing and laughing at all of the people who think that they KNOW the unknowable. But it fucking scares me when those same people manage to get themselves in positions of power.
I've also got a bit of ignostism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) / theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism): we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god".
Quote from: singer on October 21, 2008, 05:53:01 PM
There really isn't anything on the list that would incorporate possible panentheistic permutations... however broadly you would want to define the option. So I resort to "other".
But, based on some of what I have read here so far, maybe this WOULD be an appropriate option for inclusion in the list.
Can options be added to the poll after creation?
Also, to be more accurate:
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 05:48:47 PM
Bullshit. Cain isn't stirring the shit, he's pointing out someone else who is stirring shit. There is a significant difference rite thar.
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/sss2.jpg)
Dammit, Rat! Just get in the fucking box!!!!
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 05:59:12 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 05:54:55 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 05:08:39 PMYep, that's exactly it Cain. Gosh, you're so smart.
Hey Rata...why are you such a passive aggressive pansy all the fucking time?
Iptuous, blow me.
Well, mostly because fighting over shit like this, here, usually ends badly. So I don't want to fight with you over my comment. Cram wasn't offended, you were. Sorry you were offended... but I'm not gonna fight with you about it. WTF?
Then why are you responding and keeping the fight going?
QuoteOh well then, stop.
I'm not the hypocrite who is provoking people with snarky comments then crying about how much I hate fighting.
I HATE FIGHTS! THATS WHY I KEEP PROVOKING AND CONTINUING THEM WITH MY DIPSHIT, PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS!
\
:hippie:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 21, 2008, 03:26:58 PM
Agnostic, verging on atheism. I think gods don't exist, but I don't Really Really Truthfully Know (100%) if that is the case.
I also see gods as useful symbols or metaphors, depending on context and deployment.
This is basically what I believe even though I have a reputation as more atheist than agnostic. I just like pointing and laughing at all of the people who think that they KNOW the unknowable. But it fucking scares me when those same people manage to get themselves in positions of power.
I've also got a bit of ignostism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) / theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism): we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god".
I usually get past the ignostic position by holding that anyone can define "god"... then we can look at that definition and see how likely/unlikely it is. In some cases, definitions of gods are incoherent, self-contradictory and based on old texts that don't seem particularly reliable. Those seem pretty easy to hold a position against. On the other hand, if the individual has defined God as they were personally inspired to do, based on experiences that they have had... that makes things a lot more tricky IMO.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
I've also got a bit of ignostism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) / theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism): we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god".
This is what lead me from my standard protestant upbringing to the 'pantheism' that i claim now. I just decided that the only definition of 'god' that i could work with, and was acceptable was 'that which there is no greater than'. This seems to me to be pantheism....
Do you have a working definition of 'god' in your belief system that you use?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 06:03:51 PM
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/sss2.jpg)
Hey can I borrow someone's shit stirring spoon? Mine's all full of shit.
'Cthulhu'
cause someone has to punish me when im bad, and hes the bes... OMG QUICK RUN!!!
<interjection>
I'd like to point out that when I say "I prefer not to define myself," I mean it in the sense that I don't define myself even to myself, much less to other people.
</interjection>
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 21, 2008, 06:28:21 PM
'Cthulhu'
cause someone has to punish me when im bad, and hes the bes... OMG QUICK RUN!!!
So just Cthulhu, or do you go in for all the Great Old Ones and Elder Gods?
im sure the others are there, its just hes the one that called dibs on my soul.
Cram - about your hypothesis:
I bet the FSM, Googlites, CoSG are almost entirely atheist/agnostics.
Discordja, with its occultish and new-agey overtones could easily have a lot more of "spiritual, not otherwise specified."
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
I've also got a bit of ignostism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) / theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism): we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god".
This is what lead me from my standard protestant upbringing to the 'pantheism' that i claim now. I just decided that the only definition of 'god' that i could work with, and was acceptable was 'that which there is no greater than'. This seems to me to be pantheism....
Do you have a working definition of 'god' in your belief system that you use?
Pantheism is an interesting position to consider. If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity. (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.) But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply? Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own. Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds. You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against. The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.
I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.
[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism. "Hypothetically, there
could be a god. But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Discordja, with its occultish and new-agey overtones could easily have a lot more of "spiritual, not otherwise specified."
600 posts here, and you still think that?
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2008, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Discordja, with its occultish and new-agey overtones could easily have a lot more of "spiritual, not otherwise specified."
600 posts here, and you still think that?
I think GA was referring to the Greater Sphere of Discordja, of which PD.com is a part. Or maybe not.
hm okay i clicked "other" before i read the rest of the thread.
so if i'm going to take "Agnostic" to mean "Agnostic, in the widest sense of the word" and ignore the "I couldn't possibly know" bit cause it's irrelevant to my beliefs yet still Agnostic fits closest, maybe, i changed my vote to Agnostic. but really, i wouldn't possibly know (which however is irrelevant to my beliefs).
maybe i should have picked "i prefer not to define myself" but that sounds to me as almost nearly as much of a cop-out as "other". you know, if they were checkboxes instead of radio-buttons, i'd have picked "atheist" + "agnost" + "undefined", cause really i switch between all three when necessary and really don't want to pick anyone as "closest".
but since that makes me sort of undecided (in a way, cause i wouldnt agree with that assessment), i'll settle for agnost.
okay?
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Pantheism is an interesting position to consider. If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity. (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.) But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply? Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own. Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds. You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against. The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.
I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.
[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism. "Hypothetically, there could be a god. But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]
The gods in the religions that you refer to are descibed with a will similar to that of humans. I don't. It seems to me that intelligence, and self awareness in humans is a function of high levels of complexity with lots of feedback loops (like Hofstadter describes in his writings). This can be extrapolated to the highest level, to show that it is likely there is some type of ultimate self awareness (albeit totally internalized as opposed to operating in an external environment) that accompanies the universe at large. This is a comfort to one who has abandoned the beliefs that i grew up with. From this definition it also follows that everything that happens is the 'behavior' of god, and can be interpreted to therefore be in accordance with the 'will' of god. Again, a comfort to me.
that's about it.
I'm missing something with your weak atheism, i think. how are you defining 'god' in that context? the bearded guy?
Quote from: Cainad on October 21, 2008, 07:52:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2008, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Discordja, with its occultish and new-agey overtones could easily have a lot more of "spiritual, not otherwise specified."
600 posts here, and you still think that?
I think GA was referring to the Greater Sphere of Discordja, of which PD.com is a part. Or maybe not.
Yeah. The BIP definitely lends itself to agnosticism, but neo-paganism seems to be have a foothold in other Discordias. Y'know, the people who come in and tell us that mahdjipickleque has really real effects because of the quantum wavefront of the brain, or that every belief is valid because its what they believe, or that if we could just make it to Leary's 8th circuit...
Those guys.
I'm an ancestor-worshipper.
I'm an ass worshipper.
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2008, 08:08:32 PM
I'm an ass worshipper.
And the Religion of the Century Award goes to...
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Pantheism is an interesting position to consider. If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity. (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.) But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply? Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own. Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds. You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against. The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.
I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.
[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism. "Hypothetically, there could be a god. But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]
The gods in the religions that you refer to are descibed with a will similar to that of humans. I don't. It seems to me that intelligence, and self awareness in humans is a function of high levels of complexity with lots of feedback loops (like Hofstadter describes in his writings). This can be extrapolated to the highest level, to show that it is likely there is some type of ultimate self awareness (albeit totally internalized as opposed to operating in an external environment) that accompanies the universe at large. This is a comfort to one who has abandoned the beliefs that i grew up with. From this definition it also follows that everything that happens is the 'behavior' of god, and can be interpreted to therefore be in accordance with the 'will' of god. Again, a comfort to me.
that's about it.
So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.) That I can work with. Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you? (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:02:24 PM
I'm missing something with your weak atheism, i think. how are you defining 'god' in that context? the bearded guy?
Yeah, him. Plus all the other spirits that we should be revering, the Eternal Self, and the Creator.
Quote from: Cainad on October 21, 2008, 08:09:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2008, 08:08:32 PM
I'm an ass worshipper.
And the Religion of the Century Award goes to...
We fear that a Great Wind will soon blow.
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 08:12:17 PM
So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.) That I can work with. Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you? (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)
It is comforting in the sense that i can imagine the universe to have some intrinsic life or awareness that permeates it, rather than a cold empty cosmos. also, meaning, in my book requires a consciousness to render it. This allows for a universal meaning, even if it is less understandable to me as my desires are to the individual molecules that make up my body. it's an emotional thumbsucking based on semantic jiu-jitsu, i know, but it works for me.
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2008, 08:07:46 PM
I'm an ancestor-worshipper.
I've recently considered this as i've been getting started in genealogy.
Do you seriously have some belief system or practice based on ancestor-worship, or were you just making funny? :)
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:02:24 PM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
Pantheism is an interesting position to consider. If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity. (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.) But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply? Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own. Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds. You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against. The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.
I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.
[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism. "Hypothetically, there could be a god. But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]
The gods in the religions that you refer to are descibed with a will similar to that of humans. I don't. It seems to me that intelligence, and self awareness in humans is a function of high levels of complexity with lots of feedback loops (like Hofstadter describes in his writings). This can be extrapolated to the highest level, to show that it is likely there is some type of ultimate self awareness (albeit totally internalized as opposed to operating in an external environment) that accompanies the universe at large. This is a comfort to one who has abandoned the beliefs that i grew up with. From this definition it also follows that everything that happens is the 'behavior' of god, and can be interpreted to therefore be in accordance with the 'will' of god. Again, a comfort to me.
that's about it.
I'm missing something with your weak atheism, i think. how are you defining 'god' in that context? the bearded guy?
I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).
Who knows...
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 08:41:22 PM
I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).
Who knows...
Indeed, like in the Hofstadter writings that i mentioned earlier, where he describes a hypothetical coversation between an anteater and the colony of ants. Or his description of the chaotic simballs crashing through the carenium. (i highly recommend his stuff if you haven't read it) these concepts could be applied at large...
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:49:35 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 08:41:22 PM
I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).
Who knows...
Indeed, like in the Hofstadter writings that i mentioned earlier, where he describes a hypothetical coversation between an anteater and the colony of ants. Or his description of the chaotic simballs crashing through the carenium. (i highly recommend his stuff if you haven't read it) these concepts could be applied at large...
Yep, I'm a big fan of Hofstadter. I still like GEB the best, the The Mind's I was a close second.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 21, 2008, 08:53:14 PM
Yep, I'm a big fan of Hofstadter. I still like GEB the best, the The Mind's I was a close second.
Ya. I think he went off the deep end in the second half of the Mind's I , but i can't quite pinpoint where.... He's good at that. :)
OT, one of my prized possessions is after reading Metamagical Themas, i wrote him a fanboy letter, and he sent me back an invertable ambigram of my name. He actually drew it out with a marker on a piece of parchment, signed it, shipped it out in a padded envelope with a cardboard backing.
regardless of what I do or don't believe, I don't wish to be lumped in with Pastafarians or Googlites in any way, shape, or form.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 21, 2008, 09:02:44 PM
regardless of what I do or don't believe, I don't wish to be lumped in with Pastafarians or Googlites in any way, shape, or form.
Duly noted... when the time comes we'll lump you separately ;-)
Better give me three or four...
\
(http://a6.vox.com/6a00c22520c0ff549d00cd97061d9e4cd5-320pi)
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
I've also got a bit of ignostism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) / theological noncognitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism): we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god".
This is what lead me from my standard protestant upbringing to the 'pantheism' that i claim now. I just decided that the only definition of 'god' that i could work with, and was acceptable was 'that which there is no greater than'. This seems to me to be pantheism....
And I was just telling Vene the other day that no one takes the ontological argument seriously anymore... :lulz:
QuoteDo you have a working definition of 'god' in your belief system that you use?
My personal definition of "god": a personification of the forces of nature. Humans have never been good at the whole "cause and effect" game. We are pattern-recognizing machines therefore we see order even when it isn't really there. Ancient man saw many natural occurences that he couldn't explain so at some point he decided that a supreme intelilgent being (often in the form of an ancestor) must be making all of these strange things happen. This meme eventually mated with ritual healing and monarchism to give us organized religion.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 09:37:20 PM
And I was just telling Vene the other day that no one takes the ontological argument seriously anymore... :lulz:
Heh. yea... of the various classical arguments for the existence of God this one seems the most brazen. I distinguish myself by pointing at the superset of all things and (with all awareness) ascribing some type of unknowable intelligence to it so that i can hang the moniker, 'god' to it. trying to skirt anthropomorphization as much as possible. Also, i would say that the ontological argument was conceived in the context of the christian setting, and so defines some external separate entity, since it starts with the notion of 'that
being which there is no greater than' rather than the more generalized notion that i used. Similar starting points, but very different conclusions.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 09:37:20 PMMy personal definition of "god": a personification of the forces of nature. Humans have never been good at the whole "cause and effect" game. We are pattern-recognizing machines therefore we see order even when it isn't really there. Ancient man saw many natural occurences that he couldn't explain so at some point he decided that a supreme intelilgent being (often in the form of an ancestor) must be making all of these strange things happen. This meme eventually mated with ritual healing and monarchism to give us organized religion.
That's perfectly reasonable. Do you revere the forces of nature in some spiritual way? (consciously avoiding the pitfalls of misusing personification, of course)
My Beliefs: A short summary.
~People are stupid, they do stupid things for stupid reasons. Some even call this achievement. The most truly stupid people are those who see the stupidity around them but don't see it within themselves.
~Sometimes, a barstool is just a barstool and a kiss is just a kiss.
~You can never change someones mind, unless you focus ALL your energy and attention to breaking them down (effectively brainwashing them). You can however help to stimulate their thoughts, though you can never guarantee where that will lead them.
~Stephen Fry
~I'm not very good at fighting people, so I find other methods. Please bear with me when this results in passive aggressive attacks, it's not from malice, it's from my inability to communicate correctly.
No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 10:07:20 PM
No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.
While that is true, i think the implied question here is 'what do you believe re: spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof?....
what box do you check in that column?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:38:00 PM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 08:12:17 PM
So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.) That I can work with. Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you? (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)
It is comforting in the sense that i can imagine the universe to have some intrinsic life or awareness that permeates it, rather than a cold empty cosmos. also, meaning, in my book requires a consciousness to render it. This allows for a universal meaning, even if it is less understandable to me as my desires are to the individual molecules that make up my body. it's an emotional thumbsucking based on semantic jiu-jitsu, i know, but it works for me.
I agree with you that it takes intelligence/consciousness to render meaning. Meaning I consider to be an interpretation of observations; something has to be doing the interpreting to come up with meaning. So (in my book) there is no objective meaning, only subjective meaning.
I don't understand how a universal consciousness's meaning is at all relevant to you or me. If you just want meaning independent of yourself, I'd be happy to render some for you. Why do you need a really big brain to do it?
On a side note:
It does seem that complexity is required for consciousness. But does complexity
imply consciousness? I really need to read GEB...
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 10:14:12 PM
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 10:07:20 PM
No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.
While that is true, i think the implied question here is 'what do you believe re: spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof?....
what box do you check in that column?
I posted already about that, agnostic. And while this discussion is framed around spiritualism and religion, I think it's worthwhile exploring other types of belief as well.
It COULD be a productive discussion, after all.
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 10:22:12 PM
I agree with you that it takes intelligence/consciousness to render meaning. Meaning I consider to be an interpretation of observations; something has to be doing the interpreting to come up with meaning. So (in my book) there is no objective meaning, only subjective meaning.
I don't understand how a universal consciousness's meaning is at all relevant to you or me. If you just want meaning independent of yourself, I'd be happy to render some for you. Why do you need a really big brain to do it?
On a side note:
It does seem that complexity is required for consciousness. But does complexity imply consciousness? I really need to read GEB...
It's relevant because a meaning rendered by a universal intelligence (of which i am an infinitesimal part) would necessarily be a universal meaning. That's just comforting... Even if i can't access it. I know it's
there. (assuming the universe at large isn't a nihilist :lol:)
re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules. no intelligence there. But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........
As for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 10:26:17 PM
I posted already about that, agnostic. And while this discussion is framed around spiritualism and religion, I think it's worthwhile exploring other types of belief as well.
Oopsum.....i musta been focusing on the shit stirring at that point. sry... :D
Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional? Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.
Now, if the universe is self-aware, it's an individual. So your "universal" meaning is just a really big individual's meaning.
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 10:55:30 PM
Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional? Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.
Now, if the universe is self-aware, it's an individual. So your "universal" meaning is just a really big individual's meaning.
Hrmmm, I dunno if those are useful questions. I don't think 'individual' or 'nihilistic' are necessarily useful symbols in a model discussing the Universe as some sort of intelligence or conscious entity.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 10:39:12 PM
re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules. no intelligence there. But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........
Rule 30 is a rough estimate of what god looks like.
QuoteAs for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.
:lulz: I hope I'm not the only one to get that reference.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 21, 2008, 11:07:29 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 10:39:12 PM
re: side note - complexity doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. look at wolfram's cellular automata that display infinite complexity from extremely simple rules. no intelligence there. But sufficient complexity with sufficient feedback........
Rule 30 is a rough estimate of what god looks like.
QuoteAs for that hyper intelligent shade of the color blue, i dunno how that happened.
:lulz: I hope I'm not the only one to get that reference.
I think we've ALL read Douglas Adams.
I call myself agnostic because I don't give a fuck, so I'm glad that there is an option for not giving a fuck.
If I had to say anything, I'd say that god doesn't exist and that religion is an invention to make life bearable, which would make me an atheist, except that just because religion is an invention to make life bearable doesn't make it any less relevant or useful to believers, in which case it doesn't really matter whether or not god actually exists, because he exists to the people who believe in him. I just don't, personally, find belief possible.
Thus, I don't give a fuck.
I shouldn't give a fuck, but I have trouble getting past the filter that causes me to be offended that things that are supposedly of the same species as myself could be so overwhelmingly stupid and irrational as to actually believe in the literal existence of deities.
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 10:55:30 PM
Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional? Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.
That's not nihilism... that's solipsism, and really its not even that. People have, for the most part, a skewed idea of solipsism. It doesn't mean that nothing apart from you exists, simply that we cannot know anything other than ourselves, which I think is true. So, yes, I am a solipsist.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 22, 2008, 01:16:37 AM
Quote from: GA on October 21, 2008, 10:55:30 PM
Wouldn't the universe have to either be a nihilist or delusional? Nihilism is the belief that nothing apart from yourself exists; if you actually are everything, then there isn't anything apart from yourself.
That's not nihilism... that's solipsism, and really its not even that. People have, for the most part, a skewed idea of solipsism. It doesn't mean that nothing apart from you exists, simply that we cannot know anything other than ourselves, which I think is true. So, yes, I am a solipsist.
wait. i thought what you described is 'radical skeptecism' and what he described is solipsism.
GA, nihilism is simply the belief that there is no objective meaning.... (as my limited understanding of it goes).
solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 22, 2008, 01:25:11 AM
solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
so is solipsism simply the result of applying radical skepticism and being able to get no further than cogito ergo sum?
I'm an atheist who takes God in the poetic sense. I've always appreciated the reverence and beauty of sincere religion's art, music, and architecture and have often lamented that it has to be based on a con.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 01:32:02 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 22, 2008, 01:25:11 AM
solipsism |ˈsälipˌsizəm|
noun
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
so is solipsism simply the result of applying radical skepticism and being able to get no further than cogito ergo sum?
I guess so.
If Ketchup can be Catsup, then... anything is possible?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 01:13:29 AM
I shouldn't give a fuck, but I have trouble getting past the filter that causes me to be offended that things that are supposedly of the same species as myself could be so overwhelmingly stupid and irrational as to actually believe in the literal existence of deities.
Yes, this too. Sometimes.
ITT, I get my 'isms' all screwed up. Sorry bout that.
Anyway, what I was trying to get at was why is meaning generated by a universe-consciousness relevant? Even assuming that the universe really is the greatest possible thing, why should any meaning generated by it also be greatest? Why couldn't a "lesser" being come up with a "greater" meaning than the universe?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 21, 2008, 03:23:51 PM
This is fodder for something I'm brewing about the beliefs of "irreligious" people (Church of Google, Pastafarians, Discordians, Subgenii, Cthulhu sect, etc) I'd like to post some variation of this poll in different irreligious forums and see how it compares to our results. I'll tell you my hypothesis later.
If I'm missing poll options, let me know.
I believe whatever God stranded me on a planet full of monkeys HAS SOME FUCKING ANSWERING TO DO! :argh!:
:lulz:
Quote from: GA on October 22, 2008, 03:12:39 AM
Anyway, what I was trying to get at was why is meaning generated by a universe-consciousness relevant? Even assuming that the universe really is the greatest possible thing, why should any meaning generated by it also be greatest? Why couldn't a "lesser" being come up with a "greater" meaning than the universe?
Hm.. that's a good point. i guess i would point out that all meaning as conceived of by all lesser beings are
part of god, and so the greater meaning would be, in a sense, a super set, containing our lesser meanings....
I believe Rabid Badger of God is Virtuous and Controlled.
:tgrr:
Quote from: Payne on October 22, 2008, 04:02:43 AM
I believe Rabid Badger of God is Virtuous and Controlled.
Maybe she should run for Palin, next election. :lol:
TGRR,
Is now a marked man.
:tgrr: :tgrr:
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 03:59:09 AM
Quote from: GA on October 22, 2008, 03:12:39 AM
Anyway, what I was trying to get at was why is meaning generated by a universe-consciousness relevant? Even assuming that the universe really is the greatest possible thing, why should any meaning generated by it also be greatest? Why couldn't a "lesser" being come up with a "greater" meaning than the universe?
Hm.. that's a good point. i guess i would point out that all meaning as conceived of by all lesser beings are part of god, and so the greater meaning would be, in a sense, a super set, containing our lesser meanings....
Would you agree that there are "meanings" that people come up with that are, quite frankly, stupid? If so, then the universe's super-set of meanings is actually
worse than just the collection of "good" meanings.
Stupid is a human concept. Who knows, all our supposedly "stupid" shit might serve some greater purpose.
Probably not, but who knows?
Quote from: GA on October 22, 2008, 04:29:11 AM
Would you agree that there are "meanings" that people come up with that are, quite frankly, stupid? If so, then the universe's super-set of meanings is actually worse than just the collection of "good" meanings.
i try to avoid the concepts like stupid and worse and good. i'm sticking with the matter of scale and temporal permanence...
Right now, I'm at a point where I don't know if there's anything out there, and don't really think that I care right now. I belive that religion can be useful/comforting on a personal level, if one is so inclined to go that route. I just can't get into any set organized religion/dogmatic beliefs and if there is "something" out there, I find it hard to believe that it's entire ego rests on whether or not I choose to grovel before it.
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Not really, it makes things easier when you can take comfort in a greater power without question.
Gives a whole new meaning to ignorance is bliss, huh?
I suppose, yeah. Give me my rose-colored glasses back, damnit.
why cant thoughts give birth to such deities, even if this universe-consciousness is merely the 5D with 3D being current plane and 4D being time.
were this Limbo or Mount Olympus might or might not be real. Then I feel you get into faries dont exisit they die, hocus pokeus. If this can be explain by Hey Zeus so be it, or if it explains group thoughts being the reality of the culture the monkeys of the mountain work for. SO BE IT
is Godzilla real or is it just Tokyo's way of dealing with the HORROR of the atomic beast
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Not at all. I have felt great loss from abandoning my protestant christian beliefs. They say ignorance is bliss, but
knowing that all is right and good and there is some benevolent entity in control that loves you personally is one hell of a comfort. i miss that terribly.
oh well.... :|
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
No, after I stopped actively practising Catholicism, I felt like I
should be practising
something. But trying to force myself to believe a specific set of something didn't/can't work either. Now, although I occassionally feel "naked" without some sort of spiritual package to wrap myself in ("Catholic guilt" coming back to haunt me or some such thing), I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that
trying to believe something is even more pointless and empty than believing in something that may or may not be real.
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Everyone and everything is weird, in some sense. </e-prime>
But it may be worthwhile to examine why you have that wish, and if you really want it as part of your personality.
I am probably one of the few people who was raised in a secular (but not atheist) household, where freedom of and from religion reigned supreme. I was raised with only the vaguest notion of spiritual beliefs, so where many people perceive a certain "emptiness," I don't really notice anything at all. I am comfortable being "undefined."
Quote from: Cainad on October 22, 2008, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Everyone and everything is weird, in some sense. </e-prime>
But it may be worthwhile to examine why you have that wish, and if you really want it as part of your personality.
I am probably one of the few people who was raised in a secular (but not atheist) household, where freedom of and from religion reigned supreme. I was raised with only the vaguest notion of spiritual beliefs, so where many people perceive a certain "emptiness," I don't really notice anything at all. I am comfortable being "undefined."
Same here, and glad of it. I was encouraged at a young age to "Make up my own religion" and even be my own God, if I felt like it. So I really don't feel stressed by a lack of faith, because it was never presented to me as necessary.
I don't believe in any kind of personified deity. It doesn't make sense to me.
But, I'm not sure I'd label myself an atheist or an agnostic either. I mean, I think there is something beyond human control that can control humans. It's not a thinking force. It's a je ne sais quois. It's like, when I play music, I do get a spiritual feeling from that activity. That there are times a rhythm or a sound manifests itslef and then elicits something from within, a soul, if you will. But not the Christian-defined soul. Not some apparition that evaporates into the clouds when I die. More of some kind of energy that exists and develops within me for a time, 70 or 80 years if I'm lucky, and then, just goes away.
I have no idea what any of that is, so I'm not checking a box, but I wanted to share just the same.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 22, 2008, 06:38:02 PM
I don't believe in any kind of personified deity. It doesn't make sense to me.
But, I'm not sure I'd label myself an atheist or an agnostic either. I mean, I think there is something beyond human control that can control humans. It's not a thinking force. It's a je ne sais quois. It's like, when I play music, I do get a spiritual feeling from that activity. That there are times a rhythm or a sound manifests itslef and then elicits something from within, a soul, if you will. But not the Christian-defined soul. Not some apparition that evaporates into the clouds when I die. More of some kind of energy that exists and develops within me for a time, 70 or 80 years if I'm lucky, and then, just goes away.
I have no idea what any of that is, so I'm not checking a box, but I wanted to share just the same.
I also often find the atheist lack of a personal essence metaphor irritating. If only language were more divorced from religion.
we're mud that stood up...and i think that's something. i can't seem to fall into the 'i don't give a fuck' catagory because i just think it's all pretty beautiful. you're all a bunch of mud ... and you're all gorgeous. we're a part of a process, significant because we're insignificant. this experience of consciousness, to me, is something so extrodinary i just can't find the words. so how could i even define ourself?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 04:45:09 PM
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
Not at all. I have felt great loss from abandoning my protestant christian beliefs. They say ignorance is bliss, but knowing that all is right and good and there is some benevolent entity in control that loves you personally is one hell of a comfort. i miss that terribly.
oh well.... :|
I feel ya there. You get so used to that...and then this void.
I would even catch myself talking internally still (yes, I had a "personal relationship with Christ" whereby I would talk to him, tell him my thoughts, plead, etc.)...and then I'd feel this wry guilt and stupidity when I stopped.
It was a very depressing time when I let all that go into the big, black beyond, and I don't miss it anymore, but I do miss the comfort I had around FAMILY who still believe and practice it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 22, 2008, 06:38:02 PM
I don't believe in any kind of personified deity. It doesn't make sense to me.
But, I'm not sure I'd label myself an atheist or an agnostic either. I mean, I think there is something beyond human control that can control humans. It's not a thinking force. It's a je ne sais quois. It's like, when I play music, I do get a spiritual feeling from that activity. That there are times a rhythm or a sound manifests itslef and then elicits something from within, a soul, if you will. But not the Christian-defined soul. Not some apparition that evaporates into the clouds when I die. More of some kind of energy that exists and develops within me for a time, 70 or 80 years if I'm lucky, and then, just goes away.
I have no idea what any of that is, so I'm not checking a box, but I wanted to share just the same.
I think I'm on board with this...and I also only checked "prefer not to define myself."
Quote from: Jenne on October 22, 2008, 07:39:42 PM
... but I do miss the comfort I had around FAMILY who still believe and practice it.
No kidding. it becomes awkward. (especially since having children of my own.) I have a good relationship with my family and we don't frequently butt heads re: religion, but it's unsettling to know that every night when they go to sleep, they are praying that the holy spirit will influence me to return to the flock....
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 22, 2008, 04:18:49 PM
why cant thoughts give birth to such deities, even if this universe-consciousness is merely the 5D with 3D being current plane and 4D being time.
were this Limbo or Mount Olympus might or might not be real. Then I feel you get into faries dont exisit they die, hocus pokeus. If this can be explain by Hey Zeus so be it, or if it explains group thoughts being the reality of the culture the monkeys of the mountain work for. SO BE IT
is Godzilla real or is it just Tokyo's way of dealing with the HORROR of the atomic beast
SENSE, MOTHERFUCKER!!
DO YOU EVER MAKE IT??
:lol:
In my family we never discussed religion. It just never came up.
I remember when I was about six, taking a tour of a church and having my mom finally explain what that crucifixion business was all about.
So yeah, I don't really have any sense of spirituality or belief. It's just not a big deal.
my point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkheart)
:roll:
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on October 22, 2008, 06:16:38 PM
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 03:42:16 PM
Is it weird that I sort of wish I did believe in something, even though it's silly/stupid/total bullshit? :sad:
No, after I stopped actively practising Catholicism, I felt like I should be practising something. But trying to force myself to believe a specific set of something didn't/can't work either. Now, although I occassionally feel "naked" without some sort of spiritual package to wrap myself in ("Catholic guilt" coming back to haunt me or some such thing), I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that trying to believe something is even more pointless and empty than believing in something that may or may not be real.
Yes, this exactly.
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
I'm more in line with this sort of thinking now (not that I didn't believe that before, but there were also religious under/overtones), but having been raised in a religious family setting, there is still some residual need for spirituality/religion I need to shake off.
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on October 22, 2008, 08:01:11 PM
In my family we never discussed religion. It just never came up.
I remember when I was about six, taking a tour of a church and having my mom finally explain what that crucifixion business was all about.
So yeah, I don't really have any sense of spirituality or belief. It's just not a big deal.
Mine too. My sister and I got sent to Sunday School, but just so my parents could fuck on Sunday mornings. They didn't care what we learned there.
Although my dad WAS somewhat horrified when I told him at 14 that I didn't believe in God, so...
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
I think the intention behind it is to keep yourself in prospective and to remember that there are bigger things than you. Personally, I think that can be done without a deity, but some people need that.
If you were responding more specifically to the post above yours, I chalk it up to a lifetime of being told to believe in something (or else). CCD teachers never appreciated having John Lennon quoted at them in response.
I subscribe more to the second line of your post.. in ways that make me sound kind of hippie-ish, so I tend not to advertise them.
Anyway, I'm not saying I
want to adopt some kind of blind faith, just that it often seems as though I'm supposed to. But I'm not about to sit in church* and parrot some crap back and forth with the priest** if it doesn't feel right. And it doesn't.
*or wherever
**or whoever
how about if I dress up like a sexy nun...would that help?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
Of course it is amazing and interesting, but that's only because of our ability to be amazed and interested. our consciousness is what lends this awe. So the ephemeral nature of that is disturbing to many people. completely unacceptable to others. I, personally, no longer feel the need to cling to the notion of an afterlife for myself. (i accept my boundaries, both spatially and temporally. asking whether i exist after i die goes in the same category as whether i exist 10 feet to the right of my body) I do, still feel the need to believe that there is some sort of universal awareness (however different it might be from my own) that will maintain the 'amazing' and 'interesting' unbounded by time.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:37:50 PM
how about if I dress up like a sexy nun...would that help?
Yes, infinitely. :D
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 04:45:09 PMNot at all. I have felt great loss from abandoning my protestant christian beliefs. They say ignorance is bliss, but knowing that all is right and good and there is some benevolent entity in control that loves you personally is one hell of a comfort. i miss that terribly.
oh well.... :|
I definitely differ on this point from a lot of the former Christians in this thread. While I went through all of the sacraments and rituals of Catholicism, one day I just really thought about it and said "Wait a second, I don't believe any of this," (side note: this is also how I decided I'd no longer be straight edge). Then I looked back and realized I never had. I'd just been force fed it. So my tendencies, such as the language I use or the morals I hold, are very much a product of something I was never really all that into to begin with. Ultimately the sense of "right" and "wrong" instilled in me may have been as important to my perspective as the sense of "maybe" I later developed.
I forgot precisely what my point would be. I didn't start typing with the intention of just talking about myself. I'll use this: Organized religion doesn't just deal with the deity question and comfort in that regard, it also provides a, frequently comprehensive, grid through which one may see reality.
I realize now I could have more concisely said all of that by just pointing to the section of the quote above in bold and saying I agree.
Eater of Clowns,
failing this thread.
Quote from: Eve on October 22, 2008, 08:34:30 PM
Anyway, I'm not saying I want to adopt some kind of blind faith, just that it often seems as though I'm supposed to. But I'm not about to sit in church* and parrot some crap back and forth with the priest** if it doesn't feel right. And it doesn't.
*or wherever
**or whoever
I haven't been to church in a little over 5 years, but last month we went to my boyfriend's cousin's wedding - very traditional, church service then reception at country club (I liked the Utah guns and booze wedding we went to a lot better, for any number of reasons). Instead of just a short wedding ceremony, it was a full mass and despite the length of time since I've been to church, it was almost scary how automatically my brain knew every response to everything the priest said. Of course, I was sitting with my boyfriend and his three brothers, so it was more like the ADD pew with a combination of "Oh god! Get me out of here before I kill myself/fall asleep!" So we all stopped back at our apartment for a beer to clear the brain before heading to the reception.
Just goes to show how deeply ingrained a lot of the rituals can be in one's mind whether one believes it/agrees with it/whatever.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2008, 08:47:00 PM
I definitely differ on this point from a lot of the former Christians in this thread. While I went through all of the sacraments and rituals of Catholicism, one day I just really thought about it and said "Wait a second, I don't believe any of this," (side note: this is also how I decided I'd no longer be straight edge). Then I looked back and realized I never had. I'd just been force fed it.
When younger, any questions that went against the religion we were raised in were essentially met w/ the equivalent of "STFU". We were to believe what we were taught and that was that. Got older and started thinking for myself more, reading about other beliefs etc. and little by little the pieces began to fit less and less. Plus being told "questions your parents is a sin", "being depressed is a sin", etc. as an explanation for why doing something was wrong didn't really help either.
Having been raised Christian, I kinda use it as my reference point in that - if there is an "all-loving" god that expects you to know who/what he/she/it is, exactly how to act to please it, exactly what to do to worship it, etc. or else YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOREVER just seemed both contradictory to me and if "god's" that much of an asshole that it expects us to know everything about it or else "fuck off, no matter how you act as a person" why the hell would I want to spend eternity with that kind of god anyway?
Hope my ramblings made some kind of sense.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
^This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issue.
I have a friend whom I intentionally keep in the dark about my spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof, because I'm pretty sure she looks down on this attitude. Our friendship might be ruined if I was clear with her. :sad:
so does she know about your ordination?
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 09:48:10 PM
so does she know about your ordination?
:lulz:
She'll find it on Facebook eventually. Maybe.
I kinda figure that there are probably elements of the chaos that makes up the universe that are as or more intelligent than humans. I see Eris as the Chaos of the universe made into an avatar. Whether there is somewhere a real physical avatar of Eris, or Eris is more or less a metaphoric avataristic figure, I don't really have a clue.
I don't know how to define the word god. I don't think christian definitions work, and so far i haven't seen any other one that I can use to measure something perceivable against and say "Yup, that's a god, goddamit."
So do I believe? Fuck if I know.
Did this thread somehow evolve into a Theism Recovery Support Group? I fucking love you guys! GROUP HUG!!!!
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 22, 2008, 10:25:35 PM
Did this thread somehow evolve into a Theism Recovery Support Group? I fucking love you guys! GROUP HUG!!!!
:lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 22, 2008, 10:25:35 PM
Did this thread somehow evolve into a Theism Recovery Support Group? I fucking love you guys! GROUP HUG!!!!
My name's Felix, and I've been Godless for two years and one month.
*clap clap clap clap*
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
The fact that life is really amazing and interesting doesn't explain how it got here, or why each of us is alive at this moment. Even if we just say 'because it is/we are'...even if we just go by the clinical/scientific/purely logical answers, we're still missing an explanation for some experiences and certain feelings (near-death experiences come to mind).
Also, as was mentioned by others, it's nearly impossible to discard the trappings of religion, if you grow up with it. Despite having stopped going to church 10 years ago, I can still walk into a Mass and follow along as if I'd never left.
Personally, I do believe in something beyond this life and in a personal essence, but I have a hard time defining what that is. I do have a sense of spirituality and reverence for Life, but no need to worship a specific diety. In my mind, there is a Force, a Oneness, a Source to all of this...and our physical reality is as small and narrow in terms of What Is, as the Earth is in relation to the universe. Likewise, these particular incarnations are just one tiny piece of all that we are, and just one short life out of many.
wut? :|
Quote from: Roo on October 22, 2008, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
The fact that life is really amazing and interesting doesn't explain how it got here, or why each of us is alive at this moment. Even if we just say 'because it is/we are'...even if we just go by the clinical/scientific/purely logical answers, we're still missing an explanation for some experiences and certain feelings (near-death experiences come to mind).
no.
there doesn't NEED to be an explanation, beyond random chance, and trying to impose one because you're uncomfortable with the idea that you're not special and you have no purpose is just a common human weakness.
Quote from: Roo on October 22, 2008, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
The fact that life is really amazing and interesting doesn't explain how it got here, or why each of us is alive at this moment. Even if we just say 'because it is/we are'...even if we just go by the clinical/scientific/purely logical answers, we're still missing an explanation for some experiences and certain feelings (near-death experiences come to mind).
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
I, THE RIGHT REVEREND CAINAD, SHALL NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AGES
Q: "Why do we exist?"
A: Because if we didn't, we wouldn't.
Q: "Why are things the way they are?"
A: Because if things were different, things would be different. Then we'd still be asking why they were that way.
Q: "Why is there injustice in the world?"
A: Because our (very subjective) notions of justice happen to be at odds with things like bad luck, stupidity, and dickheads.
....
Sorry Roo, didn't mean to explode on you specifically. You touched on a point that I wanted to spew my bile about; no offense intended.
Amen, Rev. Cainad!
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity.
quoted for emphasis.
Quote from: Iptuous on October 22, 2008, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: Jenne on October 22, 2008, 07:39:42 PM
... but I do miss the comfort I had around FAMILY who still believe and practice it.
No kidding. it becomes awkward. (especially since having children of my own.) I have a good relationship with my family and we don't frequently butt heads re: religion, but it's unsettling to know that every night when they go to sleep, they are praying that the holy spirit will influence me to return to the flock....
Har! My mother likes to whine about the grandchildren not going to heaven. But I refuse to pack the bags for THAT guilt trip.
Cainad - excellently put.
East Coast Hustle - great avatar.
This thread, if somehow it serves no purpose as a poll, at the very least has proven that when you bring up religion shit's going to get fucked up right quick.
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
Oh, I agree. People ask it all the same. :lol:
Still, I think if you have something happen to you that doesn't make sense and can't be explained in any ordinary fashion...what do you do? How do you explain it to yourself?
It seems like there would be two possibilities. 1) it was a hallucination, brought on by stress/nerves/lack of sleep/whatever, or 2) God did it.
If God is a more socially acceptable answer than hallucinating, you might go with door number two. Or if it was so real that you can't accept the experience as a hallucination, you might choose #2.
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AMI, THE RIGHT REVEREND CAINAD, SHALL NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AGES
Q: "Why do we exist?"
A: Because if we didn't, we wouldn't.
Q: "Why are things the way they are?"
A: Because if things were different, things would be different. Then we'd still be asking why they were that way.
Q: "Why is there injustice in the world?"
A: Because our (very subjective) notions of justice happen to be at odds with things like bad luck, stupidity, and dickheads.
:lulz:
This thread inspired me to make a more elaborate rant. Visit "Or Kill Me" for readings.
Quote from: Roo on October 23, 2008, 02:30:10 AM
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
Oh, I agree. People ask it all the same. :lol:
Still, I think if you have something happen to you that doesn't make sense and can't be explained in any ordinary fashion...what do you do? How do you explain it to yourself?
It seems like there would be two possibilities. 1) it was a hallucination, brought on by stress/nerves/lack of sleep/whatever, or 2) God did it.
If God is a more socially acceptable answer than hallucinating, you might go with door number two. Or if it was so real that you can't accept the experience as a hallucination, you might choose #2.
I choose #3: your monkey brain is limited and not fully able to understand all of the natural processes of the universe. accept your limitations and move on without resorting to superstition.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 23, 2008, 03:20:33 AM
Quote from: Roo on October 23, 2008, 02:30:10 AM
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
Oh, I agree. People ask it all the same. :lol:
Still, I think if you have something happen to you that doesn't make sense and can't be explained in any ordinary fashion...what do you do? How do you explain it to yourself?
It seems like there would be two possibilities. 1) it was a hallucination, brought on by stress/nerves/lack of sleep/whatever, or 2) God did it.
If God is a more socially acceptable answer than hallucinating, you might go with door number two. Or if it was so real that you can't accept the experience as a hallucination, you might choose #2.
I choose #3: your monkey brain is limited and not fully able to understand all of the natural processes of the universe. accept your limitations and move on without resorting to superstition.
well we can't all be perfect. :wink:
no, but we CAN all be rational, if we choose to be.
I'm not so sure about that...
that old lady in the art store who asked me if I knew Jeeeezus...
she didn't really seem too rational.
see also: my sig quote
We are only partly rational beings.
We can usually manage a sort of quaint mental torpor that makes us at least tolerable though.
I think that with the exception of biological mental illness, we are all born with the ability to be rational beings. Almost all of us just choose not to be rational to some degree, whether actively or passively.
ETA: but a lifetime of choosing not to be rational does not mean that the decision to be more rational cannot be made.
You've got to take into consideration that most people are never taught to be rational, so it only asserts itself when people feel like it. People only come to feel like being rational by either being rewarded for it. In religious societies, people are sometimes discouraged from it.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 23, 2008, 04:06:05 AM
I think that with the exception of biological mental illness, we are all born with the ability to be rational beings. Almost all of us just choose not to be rational to some degree, whether actively or passively.
ETA: but a lifetime of choosing not to be rational does not mean that the decision to be more rational cannot be made.
Very true. Though for a long time, I believed I was incapable of being truly rational at any time. I assumed that was probably true for most other people too. I still tend to think that most people are not aware of how rational or irrational they are being at any given moment.
I've also observed that what a person thinks they believe, and what they actually do believe are frequently not the same. Logic and years of experience may lead a person to the conclusion that there is no god (for lack of proof), yet deep down they may still hold the belief that there is one, if they were raised within a theistic belief system.
Also, beliefs aren't always rational. Or even consciously chosen. I can choose to be rational, and still hold irrational beliefs. But if I do, I'll always be less rational than I think I am.
Quote from: LMNO on October 21, 2008, 08:08:32 PM
I'm an ass worshipper.
DONKEYS!??? For the love of sweet merciful pterodactyls, LMNO. :x
Quote from: Iptuous on October 21, 2008, 08:39:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 21, 2008, 08:07:46 PM
I'm an ancestor-worshipper.
I've recently considered this as i've been getting started in genealogy.
Do you seriously have some belief system or practice based on ancestor-worship, or were you just making funny? :)
I really do. It's hereditary.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 22, 2008, 08:04:37 PM
my point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkheart)
:roll:
That was a pretty good book, but following up a nearly indecipherable post with an eye-roll emote and a Wikipedia link doesn't help make your point as much as it helps make me want to punch you in the face.
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: Roo on October 22, 2008, 10:32:11 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 22, 2008, 08:22:49 PM
I admit, the need to have some sort of universal meaning/higher consciousness/personal essence/whatever is completely mystifying to me.
Isn't life amazing enough and interesting enough as it is?
The fact that life is really amazing and interesting doesn't explain how it got here, or why each of us is alive at this moment. Even if we just say 'because it is/we are'...even if we just go by the clinical/scientific/purely logical answers, we're still missing an explanation for some experiences and certain feelings (near-death experiences come to mind).
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
I, THE RIGHT REVEREND CAINAD, SHALL NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AGES
Q: "Why do we exist?"
A: Because if we didn't, we wouldn't.
Q: "Why are things the way they are?"
A: Because if things were different, things would be different. Then we'd still be asking why they were that way.
Q: "Why is there injustice in the world?"
A: Because our (very subjective) notions of justice happen to be at odds with things like bad luck, stupidity, and dickheads.
:mittens: :mittens: :mittens:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on October 23, 2008, 03:58:03 AM
no, but we CAN all be rational, if we choose to be.
More rational, maybe.
I very much doubt there is a perfect rational state we can reach, at least without some serious bioengineering and changes in brain structure. Being rational and thinking logically is fucking hard work (as I like to think I showed when I posted that basic logic test here a few months back).
I'm sort of trying to reject the Enlightenment premise that rationality is an instinctively available tool to everyone which can allow us to transcend all falsehoods and boundaries, while at the same time trying to reject the postmodernist response of rationality being impossible and a cover for the creation of totalitarian power structures with suspect metaphysical premises. Not that I am saying you are claiming this, only that both tend to be deeply accepted arguments that exist freely in the current cultural zeitgeist, and being aware of both brands of idiocy allows one to avoid their pitfalls more freely.
Alot of this distinction underlies the now infamous Foucault/Habermas debate. I'm having problems finding links I can access (most of the information seems to be on JSTOR), but this relates (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=13085) to what I am saying. The primary empahsis is on power, but some of the themes do relate. It also reminds me I need to read more Habermas.
Anyway, back on point. I kind of view rationality like I do democracy. Its never going to be perfect, because there are biological and psychological factors that look currently impossible to surmount. On the other hand, that should not stop you from persuing it as hard as you can, because you might just get lucky, and its a very useful tool regardless.
I think I said "more/mostly rational", but if not that's what I meant and I thank you for the clarification.
Yeah, I thought you may have meant that, since you don't often talk in absolutes.
I could just see the possibility a cliche'd argument forming as a result, so I wanted to up the probability of a good quality debate.
Good points up there. ^
I also wanted to ask if some of the people in this thread had forgotten about the Law of Fives...
In a meaningless, random universe, we find patterns, and we think they mean something. It tends to make most of us comfortable, ascribing meaning onto chaos.
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 12:54:27 PM
Good points up there. ^
I also wanted to ask if some of the people in this thread had forgotten about the Law of Fives...
In a meaningless, random universe, we find patterns, and we think they mean something. It tends to make most of us comfortable, ascribing meaning onto chaos.
THIS.
Although the notion of the 'absurd' is pervasive in all of the literature of Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict, or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance/meaning/clarity and the silent, cold universe. He continues that there are specific human experiences that evoke notions of absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or acceptance. He concludes that acceptance is the only defensible option.
For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is simply not worth living. It is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too much." Suicide offers the most basic "way out" of absurdity, the immediate termination of the self and self's place in the universe.
The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith", a term derived from one of Kierkegaard's early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (but the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself), where one believes that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic or ethical). To take a "leap of faith", one must act with the "virtue of the absurd" (as Johannes de Silentio put it), where a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. This faith has no expectations but is a flexible power initiated by acknowledgment of the absurd. However, Camus states that because the leap of faith escapes rationality and defers to abstraction over personal experience, the leap of faith is not absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical suicide." Camus rejects both this and physical suicide.
Lastly, man can choose to embrace his own absurd condition. According to Camus, man's freedom, and the opportunity to give life meaning, lies in the acknowledgment and acceptance of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. "To live without appeal," as he puts it, is a philosophical move that begins to define absolutes and universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of man is, thus, established in man's natural ability and opportunity to create his own meaning and purpose, to decide himself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, as he represents a set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe by itself.
Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide."
Of course, that we are all here suggests the main conflict would be between Kierkgaard's and Camus's view of the Universe.
Reminder: I need to read some more Kierkgaard
I love Camus. He was the inspiration for my "Modern Sisyphus" story.
That, and I love pot.
And beer. And probably maple syrup and ice hockey, too.
I really need to read that.
It dawns on me (rather pretentiously, of course) that my brother and I saw the absurdity of the universe. The difference was that he took the leap of faith into Scientology, and I accepted the absurdity.
Man, that really makes me sound like a pompous dick, doesn't it?
That's best kind of dick there is, LMNO. The best.
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 02:13:30 PM
I really need to read that.
It dawns on me (rather pretentiously, of course) that my brother and I saw the absurdity of the universe. The difference was that he took the leap of faith into Scientology, and I accepted the absurdity.
Man, that really makes me sound like a pompous dick, doesn't it?
Does your brother really count? His Scientology doesn't sound much like Kierkgaard's irrational Christianity, and I would suggest a possible 4th addition to Camus' system, that of Denial, which leads back to dogma.
Perhaps I don't understand the "leap of faith", then.
From the above passage, I thought it meant that in the Face of the Absurd, one looks for an irrational "higher step" that tries to stuff the absurd into a coherent, explainable box.
I guess that's not it?
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 01:51:36 PM
And beer. And probably maple syrup and ice hockey, too.
Hockey, no; the rest, yes.
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 02:34:55 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the "leap of faith", then.
From the above passage, I thought it meant that in the Face of the Absurd, one looks for an irrational "higher step" that tries to stuff the absurd into a coherent, explainable box.
I guess that's not it?
Not as such. It accepts the Universe is paradoxical and contradictory, and that is how one should approach God. There is no rulebook, no one way, only you can decide. Where it differs from Camus is that Kierkgaard still holds that God exists, and that a command from God would transcend all moral codes, either individually crafted or that of the Bible.
I have a lot more reading to do.
Oddly enough, this makes me happy.
LMNO
-batting .003 and loving it.
I included the Cambridge Companion to Kierkgaard in the intellectual download.
I wish my brain could do simultaneous downloads.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on October 22, 2008, 10:25:35 PM
Did this thread somehow evolve into a Theism Recovery Support Group? I fucking love you guys! GROUP HUG!!!!
:lulz: Hey, I answered the original question about what I believe! Then just evolved from there.
Quote from: Cainad on October 23, 2008, 12:28:18 AM
"Why are we here?" has got to be the most inane and pointless question in the history of humanity. Shame that so much time and energy goes into coming up with imagined answers to a question that hardly makes sense in the first place.
I agree on this note. Religious or not, I never cared about this question, or found any point in wasting my time worrying about it. Never really believed that I/we had any "higher purpose" for being here other than just being here.
Well, I picked atheist. I had to think a little bit about that or agnostic because I don't do 100% belief. I guess it depends on how significant you think that 0.01% chance is (yes, I pulled that number from my ass). I basically want to be able to change my mind if I ever get any good data from theists.
Quote from: Vene on October 23, 2008, 04:17:05 PM
Well, I picked atheist. I had to think a little bit about that or agnostic because I don't do 100% belief. I guess it depends on how significant you think that 0.01% chance is (yes, I pulled that number from my ass). I basically want to be able to change my mind if I ever get any good data from theists.
good data from theists. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'm not an atheist, but that line seems unlikely to me ;-)
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 02:34:55 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the "leap of faith", then.
From the above passage, I thought it meant that in the Face of the Absurd, one looks for an irrational "higher step" that tries to stuff the absurd into a coherent, explainable box.
I guess that's not it?
Not as such. It accepts the Universe is paradoxical and contradictory, and that is how one should approach God. There is no rulebook, no one way, only you can decide. Where it differs from Camus is that Kierkgaard still holds that God exists, and that a command from God would transcend all moral codes, either individually crafted or that of the Bible.
the leap of faith thought reminded me of a quote i saw on a book i was binding two days ago.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." -Saint Augustine.
thats a reward?!
kind of scared the shit out of me seeing that it was still used today. basicly knowing the law of fives and behaving irrationally anyway. :argh!:
I think he may have been speaking metaphorically, somehow. The unveiling of the divine and so on...
Quote from: Burns on October 23, 2008, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 02:34:55 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the "leap of faith", then.
From the above passage, I thought it meant that in the Face of the Absurd, one looks for an irrational "higher step" that tries to stuff the absurd into a coherent, explainable box.
I guess that's not it?
Not as such. It accepts the Universe is paradoxical and contradictory, and that is how one should approach God. There is no rulebook, no one way, only you can decide. Where it differs from Camus is that Kierkgaard still holds that God exists, and that a command from God would transcend all moral codes, either individually crafted or that of the Bible.
the leap of faith thought reminded me of a quote i saw on a book i was binding two days ago.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." -Saint Augustine.
thats a reward?!
kind of scared the shit out of me seeing that it was still used today. basicly knowing the law of fives and behaving irrationally anyway. :argh!:
It can be a pretty awesome reward, if you have faith in sufficiently awesome things.
Goes well with Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world." You can either
actually change the world, or just believe it's already been changed.
You know, I've been to a lot of religion forums, and not one of them has been half as intelligent as this one (disregarding the ugly shit-stirring incidents). Quite nice. Although now I'm wishing that I paid attention in Philosophy 101 during the section on Kierkegaard, or however the hell his name is spelled.
Because it seems like the "in" thing to do, I'll elucidate my own choice (I picked the Eastern thing, btw). I was baptised Catholic, raised atheist, converted to Baptist, re-converted to atheist, re-converted to Baptist, converted to Taoist, re-re-converted to Baptist, re-converted to Taoist, converted to Catholic Lite (e.g. Catholic without the guilt complex, and with 50% fewer calories), and then synthesized/converted to what I now tell people is Mytho-spiritualism/Zen Catholic, a sort of bastardized, wishy-washy spirituality that doesn't know what it believes except on Easter Sunday, when I endure the boredom of singing hymns. I'm sort of a belief slut.
Well, that's all. Thanks for reading; it's interesting hearing what everyone has to say.
Quote from: GA on October 23, 2008, 06:11:06 PM
Quote from: Burns on October 23, 2008, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 23, 2008, 02:34:55 PM
Perhaps I don't understand the "leap of faith", then.
From the above passage, I thought it meant that in the Face of the Absurd, one looks for an irrational "higher step" that tries to stuff the absurd into a coherent, explainable box.
I guess that's not it?
Not as such. It accepts the Universe is paradoxical and contradictory, and that is how one should approach God. There is no rulebook, no one way, only you can decide. Where it differs from Camus is that Kierkgaard still holds that God exists, and that a command from God would transcend all moral codes, either individually crafted or that of the Bible.
the leap of faith thought reminded me of a quote i saw on a book i was binding two days ago.
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe." -Saint Augustine.
thats a reward?!
kind of scared the shit out of me seeing that it was still used today. basicly knowing the law of fives and behaving irrationally anyway. :argh!:
It can be a pretty awesome reward, if you have faith in sufficiently awesome things.
Goes well with Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world." You can either actually change the world, or just believe it's already been changed.
It seems similar to Crowley's "Magic is causing change in conformity with Will".
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 05:10:06 PM
I think he may have been speaking metaphorically, somehow. The unveiling of the divine and so on...
Quote from: GA on October 23, 2008, 06:11:06 PM
It can be a pretty awesome reward, if you have faith in sufficiently awesome things.
Goes well with Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world." You can either actually change the world, or just believe it's already been changed.
i can see how these would work...it's just spooky in the context of the fundamentalist literature i was binding. i've always thought of faith as sort of a trust in the unknown rather than a blind belief in what is thought to be known.
Quote from: Burns on October 23, 2008, 06:22:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 23, 2008, 05:10:06 PM
I think he may have been speaking metaphorically, somehow. The unveiling of the divine and so on...
Quote from: GA on October 23, 2008, 06:11:06 PM
It can be a pretty awesome reward, if you have faith in sufficiently awesome things.
Goes well with Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world." You can either actually change the world, or just believe it's already been changed.
i can see how these would work...it's just spooky in the context of the fundamentalist literature i was binding. i've always thought of faith as sort of a trust in the unknown rather than a blind belief in what is thought to be known.
Paul claimed it was "the assured expectation of things hoped for, though not beheld"....assured expectation seems to fit blind belief, rather than a simple trust.
how does it not make my point.
THINK IT and it will come
or what some guy in a robe said
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN
futhor more
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. Genesis 28:12
:lulz:
Adam was alone in the garden.
G-d noticed this and said "I will make you a helpmate; she will be beautiful,
obedient, compliant and always pleasant and happy."
"Excellent!" says Adam.
G-d says "It will cost you an arm and a leg."
Says Adam "What can I get for a rib?"
Actually, scratch what I said earlier. I believe in fisting Bono.
How many people think that the word "irreligious" describes their views?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 08:55:29 PM
How many people think that the word "irreligious" describes their views?
I think its a good word for my views.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 08:55:29 PM
How many people think that the word "irreligious" describes their views?
14
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 08:55:29 PM
How many people think that the word "irreligious" describes their views?
Works for me.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 23, 2008, 08:55:29 PM
How many people think that the word "irreligious" describes their views?
I like it. I'm not too savvy with prefixes, but irreligious is good. "Areligious" would be incorrect, as would plain old "religious," but "irreligious hits right on the G spot of meta-descriptive religious monikers.
Is there a difference between irreligious and areligious?
first can mean 3 different things based on context
while the later simply is 'not interested'
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 09:40:00 PM
first can mean 3 different things based on context
while the later simply is 'not interested'
holy shit! that was almost a complete sentence!
with a cohesive thought wrapped in it!
did you stop trying?!
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 09:40:00 PM
first can mean 3 different things based on context
while the later simply is 'not interested'
holy shit! that was almost a complete sentence!
with a cohesive thought wrapped in it!
did you stop trying?!
Shut up.
what are the three things, then?
gold frankincense and myrrh?
no how about: lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 09:50:55 PM
gold frankincense and myrrh?
no how about: lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion
I also sort of like "irreligious"'s lexical similarities to "irreverant" which, to me, is far more indicative of the meaning ascribed to "irreligious." Sort of like being open to religion, but being open to throwing a cream pie in its face, too.
Does anyone else make the connection between the two terms?
I did, that's why I asked.
all my posts are steaks, except when they are not, just some come with bacon around the edge
Seeing as irreligious and areligious are both under some scrutiny I'd like to offer this as a suggestion:
religious
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 10:05:19 PM
all my posts are steaks, except when they are not, just some come with bacon around the edge
Wow.
:lulz:
I don't know who you're replying to, but that comment has made it onto the "Memorable Quotes" corkboard that I keep in my office.
thanks just when i killed my ego
you had to give me fuel
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on October 23, 2008, 09:34:35 PM
Is there a difference between irreligious and areligious?
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 23, 2008, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 09:50:55 PM
gold frankincense and myrrh?
no how about: lack of religion, indifference to religion, or hostility to religion
I also sort of like "irreligious"'s lexical similarities to "irreverant" which, to me, is far more indicative of the meaning ascribed to "irreligious." Sort of like being open to religion, but being open to throwing a cream pie in its face, too.
Does anyone else make the connection between the two terms?
I think that covers it nicely :)
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 10:09:13 PM
thanks just when i killed my ego
you had to give me fuel
I shouldn't be so blunt to tell you this, but I'm your Buddhic temptor. Had you not given in to my flattery, you would now be enlightened.
Sorry to ruin your day. Guess we can't all be Buddhas. :D
can i keep my I am buddha's brothers tshirt or do i have to turn that in too?
Honestly I am still very confused by all of this. 1 thing I
am sure about is all the good stuff posted ITT! :) By Jove!
The thing, I guess, that still confuses me tho, is which to choose? I'd like to be able to do this because I think it's for a good & valid reason. However difficult. It doesn't help that I've been exposed to so many different religions. It doesn't help that I began thinking of
all of them as being limiting in 1 way or another. It doesn't help that the way my mind seems to work is such that I often seem to careen off in various directions (frequently randomly) or tangents & stuff & sometimes it doesn't take much to get me going.
& this.
QuoteWhen a trout rising to a fly gets hooked on a line and finds himself unable to swim about freely, he begins with a fight which results in struggles and splashes and sometimes an escape. Often, of course, the situation is too tough for him.
In the same way the human being struggles with his environment and with the hooks that catch him. Sometimes he masters his difficulties; sometimes they are too much for him. His struggles are all that the world sees and it naturally misunderstands them. It is hard for a free fish to understand what is happening to a hooked one.
- Karl A. Menniger
While I can & do appreciate the beauty inherent in all or most religions, like fr'instance there are some ceremonies that seem to me to be fraught with all kinds of meaning beyond words (I think of the colorful simply gorgeous Hindu & Sikh ones especially). Or the practical & sometimes funny day to day advice provided by the Jewish culture & traditions, including the 'drunken joy' aspect (described so well by Albert Einstein). Or even just the sacred words of so many religions. I find I am moved most by the Tao Te Ching, certain translations or philosophical renderings of Jesus' words, the Qur'an, Native American prayers (& more).
& 1 of the best things about Discordia as religion or spiritual practice is the fact that it does not tie 1 down (or hook 1) to a rigid (dogmatic) belief system or to a series of unyielding practices.
But honestly I'm still quite puzzled.
QuoteWhen it comes to God's existence, I'm not an atheist & I'm not an agnostic. I'm an acrostic. The whole thing puzzles me.
- George Carlin
& I know I haven't answered the poll or the question or whatever & I wish I could do so.
Leaving it for now.
& this is 1 of the 'sacraments' or 'gifts' that 'practicing Discordia' has given me. The gift that keeps on giving, so to speak. Meaning you can try to express your ideas to others, like a 'communion' or commingling of sorts. & it's all symbolic or metaphoric, I think, so it doesn't fall apart if there's no consensus or even a sense of cohesiveness. Like a 'coming of age' rite that you can perform everyday. Or like aiming for a consummation of sorts? Something like that anyway. & when your aim falls far from the bull's-eye or doesn't even make the mark or get close to the target & when people don't give you all kinds of grief just for trying, then, it's like receiving the 'Discordian sacrament' of the 'mercy fuck.' Or something like that.
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on October 23, 2008, 09:44:38 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on October 23, 2008, 09:43:07 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 09:40:00 PM
first can mean 3 different things based on context
while the later simply is 'not interested'
holy shit! that was almost a complete sentence!
with a cohesive thought wrapped in it!
did you stop trying?!
Shut up.
what are the three things, then?
All in good fun, sugar.
I think a certain amount of interpretive posting adds to any forum.
I was simply referring to another thread where YD said he tries hard at being the designated airhead....
I'd agree with irreligious.
That's the best way I can explain Discordia to friends who haven't heard of it, "an irreligious disorganization who are intrigued by Eris, Goddess of Strife and Chaos, and Her doings". They still go WTF, but at least it's for the right reasons.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on October 23, 2008, 10:50:22 PM
can i keep my I am buddha's brothers tshirt or do i have to turn that in too?
As long as you wear it ironically, I think you should be okay.
as i understand it, religious means to be bound together in one belief. so irreligion ties into the "discordians stick apart" aspect. it flows into the idea of everyone being the sole source of his or her own spirtual authority. if you believe that we should all worship bacon but take full reponsibility for your perceptions then more power to you.
I think Eris represents something.
Quote from: NOVA on November 05, 2008, 02:43:58 AM
I think Eris represents something.
:golfclap:
Could you be a little more vague?
Quote from: GA on November 10, 2008, 03:02:03 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 10, 2008, 01:57:23 PM
Quote from: Eve on November 05, 2008, 02:02:02 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 05, 2008, 01:44:13 PM
Quote from: NOVA on November 05, 2008, 02:43:58 AM
:golfclap:
Could you be a little more vague?
Done!
Over. :)
Um.
Touche, GA, touche. I concede defeat :)
I believe there's nothing to be gained by anyone knowing what I believe. I know I have nothing to do at the moment and I believe I'll go deeper now.
I believe belief suggests doubt.
I believe contradictory statements mean more sometimes.
I believe anything's possible, not everything's probable.
I believe many people don't care what other people believe. I believe some do and I believe it depends on the person.
What I REALLY believe is I'll never fully understand belief. I believe it's an unnecessary word. Imagine's more succinct, that's what I believe.
I believe I've exhausted the word belief and will now go on to imagine.
I imagine someone has lost interest at this point.
I believe I have.
Dammit!
I was just reading this: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Discordianism
Quote
Despite the light-hearted nature of the religion, it appears to have a somewhat serious goal of producing a form of enlightenment through upsetting and questioning traditional assumptions.
I read it out loud to Ludwig, who then informed me that "A religion based in being upsetting" is the most concise description of Discordianism she's ever heard.
Quote from: ternechto on November 29, 2008, 06:35:13 AM
I believe there's nothing to be gained by anyone knowing what I believe. I know I have nothing to do at the moment and I believe I'll go deeper now.
I believe belief suggests doubt.
I believe contradictory statements mean more sometimes.
I believe anything's possible, not everything's probable.
I believe many people don't care what other people believe. I believe some do and I believe it depends on the person.
What I REALLY believe is I'll never fully understand belief. I believe it's an unnecessary word. Imagine's more succinct, that's what I believe.
I believe I've exhausted the word belief and will now go on to imagine.
I imagine someone has lost interest at this point.
I believe I have.
Dammit!
Not only that, strong beliefs depend on conflict. In the case of strong beliefs, one not only doubts the opposition, but actively chooses to disbelieve it and refuses to think in that way (i.e. refuses to consider the other viewpoint).
how come I can't choose more then one answer :x
Jedi
Quote from: Nigel on November 29, 2008, 07:01:58 AM"A religion based in being upsetting" is the most concise description of Discordianism
:mittens:
Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2008, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: ternechto on November 29, 2008, 06:35:13 AM
I believe there's nothing to be gained by anyone knowing what I believe. I know I have nothing to do at the moment and I believe I'll go deeper now.
I believe belief suggests doubt.
I believe contradictory statements mean more sometimes.
I believe anything's possible, not everything's probable.
I believe many people don't care what other people believe. I believe some do and I believe it depends on the person.
What I REALLY believe is I'll never fully understand belief. I believe it's an unnecessary word. Imagine's more succinct, that's what I believe.
I believe I've exhausted the word belief and will now go on to imagine.
I imagine someone has lost interest at this point.
I believe I have.
Dammit!
Not only that, strong beliefs depend on conflict. In the case of strong beliefs, one not only doubts the opposition, but actively chooses to disbelieve it and refuses to think in that way (i.e. refuses to consider the other viewpoint).
Indeed. The religion of marketing strategy - brought to you by Environment. Maybe the discordian philo is just to say fuck you to the pepsi challenge all together.
Quote from: Cainad on November 29, 2008, 03:37:32 PM
Not only that, strong beliefs depend on conflict. In the case of strong beliefs, one not only doubts the opposition, but actively chooses to disbelieve it and refuses to think in that way (i.e. refuses to consider the other viewpoint).
So, do you strongly believe that it is a mistake to hold strong beliefs?
i read the principia for the first time today i think the line is firm not strongly
discordians, pendantic as ever
everything is a stage
Quote from: YattoDobbs on January 17, 2009, 10:53:24 AM
everything is a stage
Consider, then, that not everyone is a star. Some of us are the William Hungs.
living laveta loca :lulz:
id love to be Well-iam Hung
you would.
: - [ you're right the internet is pure truth
i have a question, do discordians get laid all the time, thats what i hear, im counting on that
some of them get fucked all the time.
some of them fuck others all the time.
some of them are fucks.
tis an ill wind that blows no minds
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 18, 2009, 12:53:34 AM
some of them get fucked all the time.
some of them fuck others all the time.
some of them are fucks.
All of them are fuckers.
fuck
:boot:
Quote from: Payne on October 21, 2008, 03:41:25 PM
100% my own definition of agnostic, that is to say I couldn't possibly know, but if someone offered proof one way or the other I still wouldn't give a rats ass.
That's called Apathetic Agnostic. They have a website (kinda like ULC's).
What do I really believe?
Let's see.. What's today? Sunday, okay.
I believe Satan was the true hero of the bible. Who fought against the tyrant we know as "God", and having lost the battle God smeared his name as being evil in the bible. And so people believe Satan was the evil one, even though God is responsible for all acts of evil in the bible while Satan is only suggested of being evil. For example, Satan only killed ten people in the bible and only when God told him it was okay. And God has been credited with countless murders in the bible ranging in the millions.
And since God is the TRUE evil, I worship him.
oh a gnostic. i assume you're referring to Ialdabaoth.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 18, 2009, 12:53:34 AM
some of them get fucked all the time.
some of them fuck others all the time.
some of them are fucks.
:fap:
i believe i will have a few beers when i get off work this morning
Quote from: Burns on January 19, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
oh a gnostic. i assume you're referring to Ialdabaoth.
I assume he has no idea what you're talking about.
Jabbering sophomoric bullshit about admiration of evil is one thing; actually studying is quite another.
After reading alot of these post (and skipping over the bs) One question comes to mind. If the universe (or all of existence) is infinite and complex then is it possible for the universe (or all of existence) to acquire an intelligence? Scientist state that giving enough time anything becomes not only possible but probable. This is what leads me to this question, though I see it is probably rhetorical. IDK, just a thought.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2009, 03:27:36 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 19, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
oh a gnostic. i assume you're referring to Ialdabaoth.
I assume he has no idea what you're talking about.
Jabbering sophomoric bullshit about admiration of evil is one thing; actually studying is quite another.
That HAS crossed my mind and, if it's true, then it at least gives him an opportunity to look it up and respond with intelligence. IF he can fake it, he might just make it. :) . Or, as they say, not.
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 04:15:57 AM
After reading alot of these post (and skipping over the bs) One question comes to mind. If the universe (or all of existence) is infinite and complex then is it possible for the universe (or all of existence) to acquire an intelligence? Scientist state that giving enough time anything becomes not only possible but probable. This is what leads me to this question, though I see it is probably rhetorical. IDK, just a thought.
:|
The fuck is wrong with you?
Quote from: Vene on January 20, 2009, 04:46:25 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 04:15:57 AM
After reading alot of these post (and skipping over the bs) One question comes to mind. If the universe (or all of existence) is infinite and complex then is it possible for the universe (or all of existence) to acquire an intelligence? Scientist state that giving enough time anything becomes not only possible but probable. This is what leads me to this question, though I see it is probably rhetorical. IDK, just a thought.
:|
The fuck is wrong with you?
K, stop me if you heard this one before. We are stardust right? We were born of the debris from stars. Complex interactions brought about our existance correct. So now we are stardust that is aware of coming into existance, correct? Are we not then parts of the cosmos becoming aware of itself? These questions, though repeated, are good to ask ourselves. If you feel have something better to add then please do. Otherwise STFU.
A handful of monkeys on an insignificant rock=/=the universe
Quote from: Vene on January 20, 2009, 05:07:45 AM
A handful of monkeys on an insignificant rock=/=the universe
Gotta start somewhere. Point takin' though. Thanx for giving me a real reply, now you may proceed to flame (like you guys wouldn't anyhow right).
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Vene on January 20, 2009, 05:07:45 AM
A handful of monkeys on an insignificant rock=/=the universe
Gotta start somewhere. Point takin' though. Thanx for giving me a real reply, now you may proceed to flame (like you guys wouldn't anyhow right).
well, we ARE the Elitist discordians afterall.
Quote from: Burns on January 20, 2009, 05:40:48 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Vene on January 20, 2009, 05:07:45 AM
A handful of monkeys on an insignificant rock=/=the universe
Gotta start somewhere. Point takin' though. Thanx for giving me a real reply, now you may proceed to flame (like you guys wouldn't anyhow right).
well, we ARE the Elitist discordians afterall.
:lol:
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 05:47:21 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 20, 2009, 05:40:48 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Vene on January 20, 2009, 05:07:45 AM
A handful of monkeys on an insignificant rock=/=the universe
Gotta start somewhere. Point takin' though. Thanx for giving me a real reply, now you may proceed to flame (like you guys wouldn't anyhow right).
well, we ARE the Elitist discordians afterall.
:lol:
HA! he thinks i'm kidding. :lulz:
Dude, i'm totally SRS. :| if you're here long enough you'll find out about the inner forum.
You are now in the Outer Church Forum. You must undertake...tests...to gain access to the Invisible College Forum
Also all joking aside, indigoblade, the response to your assertion is "so what?" for a very good reason. It doesn't really actually say or mean anything. OK, so everything is made up of other things. And? Everything is made up of other things, to a degree. What does this entail? Why is this important, and not just an off the cuff remark which could (and has been) uttered by every 'deep' stoner and acid-head in existence?
Its very similar to the assertion "all is one". I believe LMNO and Ratatosk have in particular dealt with this certain cosmological thinking trope quite a few times.
TITCM.
Now go self-flagellate, indigoblade.
Quote from: indigoblade on January 20, 2009, 04:15:57 AMScientist state that giving enough time anything becomes not only possible but probable.
no they didn't. new age hippies reading about quantum said that.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2009, 09:20:14 AM
Also all joking aside, indigoblade, the response to your assertion is "so what?" for a very good reason. It doesn't really actually say or mean anything. OK, so everything is made up of other things. And? Everything is made up of other things, to a degree. What does this entail? Why is this important, and not just an off the cuff remark which could (and has been) uttered by every 'deep' stoner and acid-head in existence?
Its very similar to the assertion "all is one". I believe LMNO and Ratatosk have in particular dealt with this certain cosmological thinking trope quite a few times.
I believe that was part of the "We are all One" discussion. If I remember correctly, the general consensus response was, "Ok.
Then what?"
Therefore sex is just multiple player masturbation.
Quote from: LMNO on January 20, 2009, 01:24:18 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2009, 09:20:14 AM
Also all joking aside, indigoblade, the response to your assertion is "so what?" for a very good reason. It doesn't really actually say or mean anything. OK, so everything is made up of other things. And? Everything is made up of other things, to a degree. What does this entail? Why is this important, and not just an off the cuff remark which could (and has been) uttered by every 'deep' stoner and acid-head in existence?
Its very similar to the assertion "all is one". I believe LMNO and Ratatosk have in particular dealt with this certain cosmological thinking trope quite a few times.
I believe that was part of the "We are all One" discussion. If I remember correctly, the general consensus response was, "Ok. Then what?"
I was going to ask for a link, but that seems to sum it up right there.
I said point taken earlier. Now where is that damn stairwell to the pool on the roof, I wanna go swimming! :mrgreen:
To answer the OP's question, I am an Islamist IRL. Death to Amerikkka.
Oh, dude! Do you know the Dali Lemon? He was a Discordian who converted to Islam a few years ago.
:| srsly
islame?
"I don't give a fuck about all that stuff"
I believe God is a sex machine.
The way i like it is the way it is;
I got mine and don't worry' bout his
If god exists, I am pretty sure I'm at least three of them. If she doesn't, she's all the more useful.
I believe sex is a God machine.
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2009, 10:18:02 PM
I believe sex is a God machine.
TITCM, Nigel swings a homer lefthanded.
:thanks:
90% Atheist 9% Agnostic 1% Russian Orthodox
The mythos around Eris provides a bountiful springboard of sanity.
Here's what I really believe. Beliefs are dangerous. People die for them, they kill for them, they even make stupid choices over them. Because of beliefs in Christianity hundreds of thousands of people died in the crusades and the inquisitions (yes there was more then one).
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea. You can change an idea just as easily as you can change your underware. If an idea is stupid you can simply discard it or modify it. You don't even have to act upon an idea if you don't want to. Hell, when's the last time you heard of someone blowing themselves and others up because of an idea. You haven't. That's because idiots have beliefs and the intelligent have ideas. And when you mix ideas with hardcore science shit really starts moving in the right direction.
So that's what I think. Yep, that's the idea.
75% Atheist
25% Some shit I cooked up in my brain thats hard to explain
Quote from: Malachite on January 24, 2009, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Quercus on January 23, 2009, 09:56:31 PM
90% Atheist 9% Agnostic 1% Russian Orthodox
what
It sounds like to me that Quercus doesn't believe in a god, doesn't want to definitely rule out the possibility, and was raised Russian Orthodox and it's hard to completely escape the mindset of your original religion.
Or I'm full of shit, either way.
Quote from: Vene on January 25, 2009, 12:37:57 AM
Quote from: Malachite on January 24, 2009, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Quercus on January 23, 2009, 09:56:31 PM
90% Atheist 9% Agnostic 1% Russian Orthodox
what
It sounds like to me that Quercus doesn't believe in a god, doesn't want to definitely rule out the possibility, and was raised Russian Orthodox and it's hard to completely escape the mindset of your original religion.
Or I'm full of shit, either way.
Yay! You win free smilies in your email!!!
Wheres the Abrahamics?
Scared away.
DIVINE EMERGENT CREATIVE METAFORCE.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 04:14:49 PM
DIVINE EMERGENT CREATIVE METAFORCE.
Isn't that what one of the Power Ranger series called?
Quote from: indigoblade on January 24, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea.
are you basicly quoting the movie Dogma>?
Quote from: YattoDobbs on January 26, 2009, 02:42:01 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 24, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea.
are you basicly quoting the movie Dogma>?
So what if he is? Chris Rock is a better source of divine inspiration than the perverted preachers most of the world follows.
Quote from: Requiem on January 26, 2009, 06:16:30 AM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on January 26, 2009, 02:42:01 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 24, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea.
are you basicly quoting the movie Dogma>?
So what if he is? Chris Rock is a better source of divine inspiration than the perverted preachers most of the world follows.
besides, kevin smith is into the occult.
Since when did Catholicism become the occult?
Since Martin Luther.
:lulz:
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 04:14:49 PM
DIVINE EMERGENT CREATIVE METAFORCE.
:awesome: <-- Is that like some cosmic version of an army of these?
Quote from: Cain on January 26, 2009, 01:17:11 PM
Since Martin Luther.
oh snap
Quote from: LMNO on January 26, 2009, 12:44:38 PM
Since when did Catholicism become the occult?
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Arrow-Sounds-Violence-Vol/dp/1401200451/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_1_img?pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1563898020&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=15RBMC501S1HH6VQC2D2
or
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Arrow-Quiver-Book-1/dp/1563899655/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c
i forget which one.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on January 26, 2009, 02:42:01 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 24, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea.
are you basicly quoting the movie Dogma>?
or the inside cover of a Tool album, and occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
Are you aware of how much of a prick you sound like right now?
Quote from: LMNO on January 27, 2009, 04:59:37 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
Are you aware of how much of a prick you sound like right now?
Why, did you take it that way? Why did you take it that way?
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on January 26, 2009, 02:42:01 AM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 24, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
Ideas tho, no one has to die for an idea.
are you basicly quoting the movie Dogma>?
or the inside cover of a Tool album, and occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
That stuff will melt your brain.
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 05:12:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 27, 2009, 04:59:37 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
Are you aware of how much of a prick you sound like right now?
Why, did you take it that way? Why did you take it that way?
Probably because when you inform people of things that are common knowledge, it comes across as condescending.
Quote from: Nigel on January 27, 2009, 07:19:35 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 05:12:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 27, 2009, 04:59:37 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 04:28:25 PM
occult means hidden or secret knowlege BTW
Are you aware of how much of a prick you sound like right now?
Why, did you take it that way? Why did you take it that way?
Probably because when you inform people of things that are common knowledge, it comes across as condescending.
As in, most people already know the definition and there is no need to supply one.
Quote from: Kai on January 25, 2009, 04:14:49 PM
DIVINE EMERGENT CREATIVE METAFORCE.
this is basically my take on stuff as well.
except stuff turns out to be exceedingly complicated, so I make reservations for coming up with something new and/or better. although it would probably still fall under DIVINE EMERGENT CREATIVE METAFORCE
i am happy how you made the name for your divine entity sound like a big motherfucking robot.
common knowledge, you know nothing about common knowledge, you cannot handle the common knowledge,
only Uncle BadTouch has the authority to dispense the common knowledge.
Quote from: Fomenter on January 27, 2009, 08:04:13 PM
only Uncle BadTouch has the authority to dispense the common knowledge.
How old is knowledge?
Quote from: Fomenter on January 27, 2009, 08:04:13 PM
common knowledge, you know nothing about common knowledge, you cannot handle the common knowledge,
only Uncle BadTouch has the authority to dispense the common knowledge.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
the common knowledge was of age in England at the time it happened
I BELIEVE IN A THING CALLED LOVE
\
(http://www.poster.net/darkness-the/darkness-the-photo-the-darkness-6226775.jpg)
Quote from: Fomenter on January 27, 2009, 08:15:38 PM
the common knowledge was of age in England at the time it happened
I think I read it differently.
dispense comm on knowledge
Quote from: L. Ka Bong on January 27, 2009, 08:29:00 PM
Quote from: Fomenter on January 27, 2009, 08:15:38 PM
the common knowledge was of age in England at the time it happened
I think I read it differently.
dispense comm on knowledge
:lulz:
KABOOOONNNGGGG!
Sorry, I forget I am dealing with intelegent people. I'm actualy used to having to explain myself, hence my blah blah blah earlier on the meaning of occult.
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 09:21:12 PM
Sorry, I forget I am dealing with intelegent people. I'm actualy used to having to explain myself, hence my blah blah blah earlier on the meaning of occult.
You're dealing with intelligent people? I don't get it. Explain? :?
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 09:21:12 PM
Sorry, I forget I am dealing with intelegent people. I'm actualy used to having to explain myself, hence my blah blah blah earlier on the meaning of occult.
Do you mostly hang out with high-schoolers?
Quote from: Nigel on January 27, 2009, 09:32:25 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 09:21:12 PM
Sorry, I forget I am dealing with intelegent people. I'm actualy used to having to explain myself, hence my blah blah blah earlier on the meaning of occult.
Do you mostly hang out with high-schoolers?
I mostly avoid hanging out. Most people where I live are more concerned with who the leading football or basketball teams are rather then what the definition of occult is. Hence some of my habits. I'm surrounded by idiots is deffinately the axiom for where I live.
For what it's worth, I'm more concerned with who the leading football or basketball teams are rather then what the definition of occult is.
Also, you should go back to the Dragon.
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 09:41:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 27, 2009, 09:32:25 PM
Quote from: indigoblade on January 27, 2009, 09:21:12 PM
Sorry, I forget I am dealing with intelegent people. I'm actualy used to having to explain myself, hence my blah blah blah earlier on the meaning of occult.
Do you mostly hang out with high-schoolers?
I mostly avoid hanging out. Most people where I live are more concerned with who the leading football or basketball teams are rather then what the definition of occult is. Hence some of my habits. I'm surrounded by idiots is deffinately the axiom for where I live.
Watch it. Someone's bound to make this a new
Slogan for PD.com: "Surrounded by idiots."
Quote from: Fomenter on January 27, 2009, 08:15:38 PM
the common knowledge was of age in England at the time it happened
Too many books republished the same definition of occult, leading to the tragedy of the common knowledge.
That's why the Floating Republic of Mu is operating on 5th Generation Post-Occult Warfare mode until the next major Black Swan hits.
Quote from: L. Ka Bong on January 27, 2009, 09:44:05 PM
For what it's worth, I'm more concerned with who the leading football or basketball teams are rather then what the definition of occult is.
Also, you should go back to the Dragon.
Who the hell are you?
Quote from: Telarus on January 28, 2009, 12:07:30 AM
That's why the Floating Republic of Mu is operating on 5th Generation Post-Occult Warfare mode until the next major Black Swan hits.
:lulz:
Quote from: Requiem on January 28, 2009, 01:20:28 AM
Quote from: L. Ka Bong on January 27, 2009, 09:44:05 PM
For what it's worth, I'm more concerned with who the leading football or basketball teams are rather then what the definition of occult is.
Also, you should go back to the Dragon.
Who the hell are you?
andy richter.
Who are you?
Who who, who who? Who are you?
\
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_01/TheZimmer3DM_468x354.jpg)
Who's on first?
(http://www.movieposters.com/order/sc_images/products/31712_image.jpg)
Quote from: Sheered Völva on January 29, 2009, 05:43:58 AM
Who's on first?
(http://www.movieposters.com/order/sc_images/products/31712_image.jpg)
HEY! i HAD THAT POSTER AS A CHILD!!!!
No comment
Quote from: Burns on January 29, 2009, 07:13:18 AM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on January 29, 2009, 05:43:58 AM
Who's on first?
(http://www.movieposters.com/order/sc_images/products/31712_image.jpg)
HEY! i HAD THAT POSTER AS A CHILD!!!!
I know. I stole it from your house.
Quote from: Sheered Völva on February 01, 2009, 05:05:51 AM
Quote from: Burns on January 29, 2009, 07:13:18 AM
Quote from: Sheered Völva on January 29, 2009, 05:43:58 AM
Who's on first?
(http://www.movieposters.com/order/sc_images/products/31712_image.jpg)
HEY! i HAD THAT POSTER AS A CHILD!!!!
I know. I stole it from your house.
Are YOU the mailman?
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thro use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
Quote from: Telarus on February 01, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thro use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
Well, this one time, I lifted this girl almost entirely into the air with only two fingers.... 8)
NO WTF! am I still doing it wrong???
What I believe is that EVERY concept or viewpoint or belief is TRUE IN SOME SENSE, so, all of the above, though I'd settle if I could just choose "I believe on no gods" + "I believe in Eris as one of many", but I can't choose any, not even the "other" option because I believe all of the first ones too. "Option 10: All of the above"?
Hearing that many of you just identify with one kind of religion, or atheism, or whatever, makes me feel like a Christian being told in church that "Ha, no, none of us really BELIEVE in this Jesus fellow, it's just an excuse to hang out with nice people"
I mean, I agree that it's all a load of crap, but that all the world and every idea in it are kinda crap too, and I really believe that this is the most sensible answer so far to be found. I love it.
Am I being a twat? Or are you all kidding because that's the patent way we hide our shame?
I'm actually a believer of the Hellenistic Pantheon, only I don't sacrifice goats or give a fuck about the books that one guy over at MysticWicks wrote.
Quote from: Suu on February 02, 2009, 07:05:08 PM
I'm actually a believer of the Hellenistic Pantheon.
:spittake:
Sweet.
Just checking.
I prefer the sumeroakkadian pantheon. For obvious reasons. *points to nick*
I went with the Buddhist/Taoist option, primarily because I see Erisian thought as an Americanized melange of Eastern philosophy underlined by a presumption of a Christian context for the adherent.
The original Discordian thought obviously draws strongly from the Orientalism of sixties radicalism, the partially understood Taoism and Buddhism popularized by Alan Watts, but it is also an quintessentially American artifact. A proper Taoist text would have no need to undermine and attack Christian assumptions of spirituality, but the Principia does just this, and necessarily so -- the near total domination of Christianity in the West means even the atheist's thought is influenced by Christian assumptions. The humor and anti-professionalism of the Principia also challenges these assumptions -- the "nobility" of spiritual teachers in this case -- in a way the slick and propagandistic packaging of Buddhism and other Eastern thought categorically does not. No one confuses Greg Hill with Discordianism, not the way Westerners conflate the hero-worship of the Dalai Lama with Buddhism in the exact same way Catholics conflate the hero-worship of the Pope with Christian piety.
As a Westerner raised in a Christian dominated culture by formerly-Catholic atheists, I've long held that it would be disingenuous of me to pretend to be an adherent of an Eastern spiritual philosophy when I really have no understanding of the role of those beliefs in the context of life as lived by its adherents. Hence I am a Discordian, as I can understand Discordianism -- it is accessible in a way the Tao te Ching never will be.
Also I'm new. Please don't kill me.
I like you, DK.
Welcome abroad.
Well, dang.
Hell of good start there, Dead Kennedy. I don't even feel like telling you to fuck off. Welcome to PD.com.
Quote from: Dead Kennedy on February 02, 2009, 08:41:37 PM
I went with the Buddhist/Taoist option, primarily because I see Erisian thought as an Americanized melange of Eastern philosophy underlined by a presumption of a Christian context for the adherent.
The original Discordian thought obviously draws strongly from the Orientalism of sixties radicalism, the partially understood Taoism and Buddhism popularized by Alan Watts, but it is also an quintessentially American artifact. A proper Taoist text would have no need to undermine and attack Christian assumptions of spirituality, but the Principia does just this, and necessarily so -- the near total domination of Christianity in the West means even the atheist's thought is influenced by Christian assumptions. The humor and anti-professionalism of the Principia also challenges these assumptions -- the "nobility" of spiritual teachers in this case -- in a way the slick and propagandistic packaging of Buddhism and other Eastern thought categorically does not. No one confuses Greg Hill with Discordianism, not the way Westerners conflate the hero-worship of the Dalai Lama with Buddhism in the exact same way Catholics conflate the hero-worship of the Pope with Christian piety.
As a Westerner raised in a Christian dominated culture by formerly-Catholic atheists, I've long held that it would be disingenuous of me to pretend to be an adherent of an Eastern spiritual philosophy when I really have no understanding of the role of those beliefs in the context of life as lived by its adherents. Hence I am a Discordian, as I can understand Discordianism -- it is accessible in a way the Tao te Ching never will be.
Also I'm new. Please don't kill me.
I give this n00b 5 Internets and mittens.
:mittens:
yeah, seriously. :mittens:
Quote from: lumberjim on February 02, 2009, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 01, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thru use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
OK, maybe NOT just like on Star Wars....
defining one's beliefs thru cinematic analogy is always fraught with peril.
I guess what I really mean is that I believe there is a positive force and a negative force within all of us. I don't really go in for external deities so much.
Positive, negative... you're falling into the same trap as those blind "Jedi." Don't call something "negative" just because your narrow little dualistic mind can't cope! There is only Power, and the only divisions of it are "more" and "less."
Quote from: GA on February 03, 2009, 02:36:12 AM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 02, 2009, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 01, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thru use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
OK, maybe NOT just like on Star Wars....
defining one's beliefs thru cinematic analogy is always fraught with peril.
I guess what I really mean is that I believe there is a positive force and a negative force within all of us. I don't really go in for external deities so much.
Positive, negative... you're falling into the same trap as those blind "Jedi." Don't call something "negative" just because your narrow little dualistic mind can't cope! There is only Power, and the only divisions of it are "more" and "less."
THAT'S SITH TALK!!
/ \
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/crampayne.png)
also: welcome, DK! & great answer
Despite my aforementioned agnosticism, if I had to choose a Pantheon to follow, it would be the Greeks. Most kickass mythology ever. The figurehead is a do as I say not as I do womanizer who overthrew his father and imprisoned him in hell, who also gave birth to two of his children. And that's just Zeus. Ares got put on trial for murder, and made his cultists in Sparta sacrafice puppies in his name (a real life case of kicking the dog (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog)). Hermes, by contrast was such an accomplished thief he once stole Apollo's cattle...and such a smooth talker he essentially talked his way into being an Olympian when hauled before Zeus for his crime.
And so on and so forth.
Quote from: GA on February 03, 2009, 02:36:12 AM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 02, 2009, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 01, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thru use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
OK, maybe NOT just like on Star Wars....
defining one's beliefs thru cinematic analogy is always fraught with peril.
I guess what I really mean is that I believe there is a positive force and a negative force within all of us. I don't really go in for external deities so much.
Positive, negative... you're falling into the same trap as those blind "Jedi." Don't call something "negative" just because your narrow little dualistic mind can't cope! There is only Power, and the only divisions of it are "more" and "less."
I don't even think there's power. There's just will, and the only divisions of it are executed and repressed.
Quote from: GA on February 03, 2009, 02:36:12 AM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 02, 2009, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 01, 2009, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 01, 2009, 04:58:41 PM
for the sake of brevity, and because it's close enough to what I feel in my bones.....I believe in The Force.
yeah....like on Star Wars.
Let's clarify that. You believe that living beings with Will (or just human Minds?) have the ability to directly influence Reality thru use of said Will?
Any anecdotes/experiences/hallucinations/fnords that you hae experienced while using this Model to parse Universe?
OK, maybe NOT just like on Star Wars....
defining one's beliefs thru cinematic analogy is always fraught with peril.
I guess what I really mean is that I believe there is a positive force and a negative force within all of us. I don't really go in for external deities so much.
Positive, negative... you're falling into the same trap as those blind "Jedi." Don't call something "negative" just because your narrow little dualistic mind can't cope! There is only Power, and the only divisions of it are "more" and "less."
Unless positive and negative are used in the sense of polarity, rather than value judgments.
Antero Alli uses a model in Angel Tech that uses the polarity concept. He ties each of the four basic circuits to gears.
First Gear - Baby - First Grade - Biosurvival
Second Gear - Child - Second Grade - Territory/Winning Games/Who's the Leader/Who's the Follower/Who's the Kid Picked Last
Third Gear - Student - Semantics - learning new models and maps
Fourth Gear - Big Kid or Adult - Social/Sexual
He then discusses how our imprints can charge the gears either positively or negatively, thus they would turn forward, for positive polarity and backward for negative.
I kinda like that model.
Define "harm".
So harming someone attempting to break your legs would be negative? Any philosophy that teaches you to let your legs get broken is a bad one. I can easily prove this, with a sledgehammer.
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
So harming someone attempting to break your legs would be negative? Any philosophy that teaches you to let your legs get broken is a bad one. I can easily prove this, with a sledgehammer.
AH, but harming a person trying to break your legs means that your 1st circuit is 'positively' charged... it moved forward with a program of positive bio-survival.
limberjim is on his own, but I got a shiny toy model to play with so...
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
So harming someone attempting to break your legs would be negative? Any philosophy that teaches you to let your legs get broken is a bad one. I can easily prove this, with a sledgehammer.
Ueshiba would argue that whipping out a blade and hamstringing your sledgehammer wielding opponent would be the least ethical response to that situation possible.
If you had started the fight by needless actions/insults, then it jumps into unethical harm.
If he just runs up and knocks you down out of nowhere, then raises the sledge over your feet, well... then cutting his feet off is still ethical, just barely.
The most ethical thing you could do, argues O-sensei, would be to roll backwards with your attacker when he charged, flip him, bring his sledge handle down and on his throat and across one arm, and gently kneel on it...... and ask him to rationally re-examine his motivations for assaulting you while he works up a good apology.
And there's the range of values in between. Which is true enough, in some sense.
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2009, 10:13:07 PM
So harming someone attempting to break your legs would be negative? Any philosophy that teaches you to let your legs get broken is a bad one. I can easily prove this, with a sledgehammer.
Almost as good as the barstool, but not quite.
What do I really believe?
I believe that you're all wrong, myself included.
Put that in your little report.
...or anyone else, i guess.
In the What do you REALLY believe? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.msg652229#msg652229) thread you said:
Quote from: Dead Kennedy on February 02, 2009, 08:41:37 PM
I went with the Buddhist/Taoist option, primarily because I see Erisian thought as an Americanized melange of Eastern philosophy underlined by a presumption of a Christian context for the adherent.
The original Discordian thought obviously draws strongly from the Orientalism of sixties radicalism, the partially understood Taoism and Buddhism popularized by Alan Watts, but it is also an quintessentially American artifact. A proper Taoist text would have no need to undermine and attack Christian assumptions of spirituality, but the Principia does just this, and necessarily so -- the near total domination of Christianity in the West means even the atheist's thought is influenced by Christian assumptions. The humor and anti-professionalism of the Principia also challenges these assumptions -- the "nobility" of spiritual teachers in this case -- in a way the slick and propagandistic packaging of Buddhism and other Eastern thought categorically does not. No one confuses Greg Hill with Discordianism, not the way Westerners conflate the hero-worship of the Dalai Lama with Buddhism in the exact same way Catholics conflate the hero-worship of the Pope with Christian piety.
etc...
Would you please elaborate a bit more on the differences between the
Orientalism of sixties radicalism and "genuine" buddhism or Taoism. I'm not sure if i agree that Alan Watts partially understood Buddhism or Taoism simply because his method of conveyance was through using one religion to illuminate another. He did this sure, but, at the same time, the principles of taoism and buddhism aren't really too complicated to end up getting lost in translation. One of the most illuminating things i realized after reading/listening to Watts was how the model of Christianity didn't include other religions but how Eastern religions did. Watts' had a great way of putting eastern ideas into a western context which helped remove "ghosts", as he called them, from our lanugage. I even recall him freely admitting that a proper lecture on Zen would be to sit in a room and say nothing.
In my opinion if anybody helped distort eastern concepts (especially Tantric ones) were occult societies such as Helena P. Blavatsky's Theosophical Society or Theodor Reuss' O.T.O.. among many others. A combination of half-understood eastern concepts combined with western occultism i would say contributed more to the interpretive vagueness of sixties radicalism. If anything, people half understood Watts' rather qualified attempt conceptualize eastern ideas for a western audience.
unless i'm totally missing something here, lemme know :)
Quote from: Burns on February 04, 2009, 04:35:12 AMWould you please elaborate a bit more on the differences between the Orientalism of sixties radicalism and "genuine" buddhism or Taoism. I'm not sure if i agree that Alan Watts partially understood Buddhism or Taoism simply because his method of conveyance was through using one religion to illuminate another. He did this sure, but, at the same time, the principles of taoism and buddhism aren't really too complicated to end up getting lost in translation.
Is a religion only it's principles? When I think about Christianity, I think of a lot of different things, and few of those things have much of anything to do with principles.
I think about coke-snortin' and gay cruising Ted Haggard, the latest hypocrite, and Jimmy Swaggart doinking his secretary who went on to strip for Playboy, the first hypocrite (in my lifetime, not history). I think of Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, and a thousand other turd-polishing shitbirds.
I think about Kurt Warren who clearly has tremendous faith and draws great willpower from that faith...so he can throw an inflated leather sack down a field. And I think about every boxer (I'm a big fan of the fights) who thanked God for granting him the power to smash another guy's face to pulp.
I also think about the woman who stopped as I walking down a street, lost in a world of my own pain and suffering, who touched my arm and gently said "You know, Jesus loves you too." and made me cry because it was exactly the kindness I needed in that moment, even if I know that the love of a flying Jewish zombies is insubstantial
at best.
Christianity is also that inexorable, unexciseable moral juggernaut that shapes all of our worldviews. If you can't speak in terms of Judeo-Christian morality, you simply cannot speak to most Westerners.
And mind you, I don't mean the "Christian morality" of fringe christofascist's with obsessive sexual issues. I don't mean the legions of politically active fathers obsessed with their daughter's sex lives, or the repressed homosexuals who seek to punish others for their unwanted desires. I mean the Judeo-Christian morality that Thomas Jefferson sought to highlight with
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_bible), that Tolstoy explored in The Kingdom of God is Within You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You), which inspired the peaceful resistance of Martin Luther King Jr., that Kant sought to codify with reason guided by intuition. Western humanism is simply what Jesus was teaching rephrased for the modern era.
We eat, breathe and live in an environment where these presumptions are all present. We Discordians cling fiercely to a sense of our own individuality, our self-perceived right to decide what is right, but how many of us recognize that modern "Erisian" thought traces a line from this conversation now through the permanent rebellion of the 60's counter-culture through the Enlightenment's recognition of
cogito, ergo sum through the Protestant revolution all the way back to Jesus saying we're all equal in the eyes of our Lord. This is an idea absent in the East, this assumption of some metaphysical equality between all people.
Is my point clearer now?
Have you ever seen the movie Ninja Resurrection (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4536359878650918671&ei=ujyJSdeHHqO6qAOylKmgDQ&q=ninja+resurrection&hl=en)? It's sort of in the "Wrath of God/Christian Mysticism" genre (like American films
The Ninth Gate,
End of Days,
Omen, etc.) but it's mostly interesting for its demonstration of how completely and totally the Japanese don't understand Christianity. The Japanese do not eat, breathe and live in an atmosphere of Christianity, and it shows when they try to do "Wrath of God" stuff.
Westerners can't understand Buddhism and Taoism the way it really exists
in the wild as it were, because we do not eat, breathe and live it. Our understanding of Buddhism and Taoism is
principles only, without the deeper awareness of the hypocrisies, the realities, the idiosyncrasies, and other dimensions of these religions.
The Tao isn't the road you read about other Taoists following.... the Tao is walking the road.
If the road in the Far East has different Billboards, Rest Stops, Gas Stations and Hotels than the road here in the States, that doesn't mean it isn't the road. In our case, the billboards run ads for getting stoned on Zenarchy brand joints. Hotels range from Best Western 'Eastern Religions', to Hilton 'Western Occultism', with gas stops at Philosophical Absurdism, Christianity, the Sixties, pop psychology, Beatnicks, Dadaists and a lovely resturant run by crazy motherfuckers that sent letters to Playboy magazine.
What I really believe is that none of us know what's going on... the best we can do is wildly guess at concepts based on assumptions extruded from what we perceive. I believe that any system which claims otherwise, be it Phelps Fundamentalism, Materialist Atheism or the Paramis of Buddha, are probably full of shit. I believe that the only reality is experiential reality and that only tells you what you experienced, not what IS or WAS or WILL BE.
Ninja Resurrection is supposed to have something to do with God? I missed that...
@Dead Kennedy: I like where you're going with this.
Quote from: lumberjim on February 03, 2009, 08:29:30 PM
i'm defining negative as a force that leads you to do things that harm others or are motivated by cruelty or anger. the force is your own , not external.
we are all god. we are all the devil.
Ah, so it is a value judgment after all. Rather than going on about "positive" and "negative," wouldn't it be easier to just name whatever moral framework you're working from? It seems like your "positive" and "negative" just mean "right" and "wrong."
Could you clarify your last statement? I think you mean to say something along the lines of "everyone has the potential for both Godliness and evil," but I'm not sure.
Quote from: GA on February 04, 2009, 09:00:07 PM
@Dead Kennedy: I like where you're going with this.
Quote from: lumberjim on February 03, 2009, 08:29:30 PM
i'm defining negative as a force that leads you to do things that harm others or are motivated by cruelty or anger. the force is your own , not external.
we are all god. we are all the devil.
Ah, so it is a value judgment after all. Rather than going on about "positive" and "negative," wouldn't it be easier to just name whatever moral framework you're working from? It seems like your "positive" and "negative" just mean "right" and "wrong."
Could you clarify your last statement? I think you mean to say something along the lines of "everyone has the potential for both Godliness and evil," but I'm not sure.
Good and evil. I scoff.
For something to be truly evil no good can come of it, for something to be completely good no evil can come of it which makes it immposible. Every action of good has an bad effect and every evil, a good.
I didn't write this, but I got it off some random webpage on meditation, from the kids section. Deep.
http://meditation.org.au/class1.asp
----------------------------------
Sometimes things aren't what we expect.
Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what people mean, and sometimes for the biggest questions in life everyone has a different answer.
When people talk about God and what we are doing here on earth, for example, you'll find that most people don't agree on very much at all.
If you have heard of the word religion, you might know that there are many different beliefs about who God is or whether he or she exists at all.
Atheists don't believe in God. They say that there is no scientific proof for God's existence. Other people believe in a God that is like a really nice person who loves us all, or that God is just another name for the universe and existence - it just IS.
But do you know what? We think every one is right. How can that be?
Have you ever thought about all the names that water has? We know the liquid is called 'water', it is wet and it is easy for us to see. Then there is 'ice' – it is frozen water and it is so hard it can be like a rock. Then if you heat water up it becomes a 'vapour' or 'steam' and is practically invisible.
Lets think about God like water for a minute. Sometimes he (or she, or it) is invisible like a vapour but if you were to stop and look really closely you would be able to see tiny water droplets in the vapour. Other times, God is like a liquid, that you can swim in and other times God is so real, it is like a block of ice right in front of you.
Sometimes you can't actually see the water, but it still exists. Everything on earth needs water for life. Plants need it, animals need it.
We are all like that too, we all need love for our lives too. To be simple, love is another name for God. So some people say that they don't believe in God, but they still believe in love. So they experience God that is very hard to see, like vapour.
Then there are others that say they can see God like an energy, swim in him, like a liquid. For them God is just as real as drinking water.
Then there are still others that believe that God is as real as a block of ice. If you ran into a block of ice you would crash into it. For some people, God is like that, so real you can't miss her.
Then there other names for God. I might call God - 'love', but someone else says no is he is a person like you and me and his name is 'God', or 'Supreme', or 'Allah', or 'Rama' and others say that God is not a male or a female, that God is more like a 'force' or 'energy'. Do you see what i mean about all the different names for water? ...and all the different ways people think of God?
Quote from: lumberjim on February 05, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on February 05, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
snip~Every action of good has an bad effect and every evil, a good.
i don't think this is true.
a bunch of us on the cellar kicked in a bought a car for a guy that needed one. the guy that sold it to me needed to sell it. we all felt really good about the whole thing.
can you show me the bad effect in that?
Pollution
Quote from: lumberjim on February 05, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on February 05, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
snip~Every action of good has an bad effect and every evil, a good.
i don't think this is true.
a bunch of us on the cellar kicked in a bought a car for a guy that needed one. the guy that sold it to me needed to sell it. we all felt really good about the whole thing.
can you show me the bad effect in that?
Perhaps the next time he needs something he will be looking to others to get it for him, rather than doing it himself?
Quote from: lumberjim on February 05, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on February 05, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
snip~Every action of good has an bad effect and every evil, a good.
i don't think this is true.
a bunch of us on the cellar kicked in a bought a car for a guy that needed one. the guy that sold it to me needed to sell it. we all felt really good about the whole thing.
can you show me the bad effect in that?
THE CO2 WILL MELT THE ICE CAPS AND KILL THE POLAR BEARS!!!
WHY DID YOU KILL THE POLAR BEARS?
Quote from: lumberjim on February 05, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on February 05, 2009, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: lumberjim on February 05, 2009, 04:15:09 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on February 05, 2009, 02:11:58 AM
snip~Every action of good has an bad effect and every evil, a good.
i don't think this is true.
a bunch of us on the cellar kicked in a bought a car for a guy that needed one. the guy that sold it to me needed to sell it. we all felt really good about the whole thing.
can you show me the bad effect in that?
Pollution
Pollution would be a negative effect of him driving the car, not of his receiving it. the possibility of his depending more on charity is a potential negative, i guess....but it's only a potential. there also exists the potential that he will endeavor never to need it again, and ....also, may pay it forward.
But him driving the car would not be possible without the recieving of the car
semantics
in the tangled web of causality, I'm sure you can find a "good" or "bad" side effect to anything. That doesn't mean it's a cosmic law.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 05, 2009, 04:36:09 PM
semantics
in the tangled web of causality, I'm sure you can find a "good" or "bad" side effect to anything. That doesn't mean it's a cosmic law.
Damn you and your Law of Fives!
Yes, causality seems like a very limited view of labels and categories. How often is something simply "Cause->Effect"? It seems far more often to be something like:
Causes->Effects/Causes->Effects/Causes->Effects/Causes->Effects/Causes->Effects/Causes->Effects
| \ | / \ | | \ | / \ | | \
Effects->Causes\Effects->Effects->Causes\Effects->Causes\Effects->Effects->Causes\Effects->Causes
which is all the better I'm gonna model this in ASCII
aww it wasnt a segway angle :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on February 05, 2009, 04:36:09 PM
semantics
in the tangled web of causality, I'm sure you can find a "good" or "bad" side effect to anything. That doesn't mean it's a cosmic law.
So why even have those words. Even thing falls in the moral gray area anyways. No matter what the intention is.
Quote from: Obecalp on February 06, 2009, 02:57:23 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 05, 2009, 04:36:09 PM
semantics
in the tangled web of causality, I'm sure you can find a "good" or "bad" side effect to anything. That doesn't mean it's a cosmic law.
So why even have those words. Even thing falls in the moral gray area anyways. No matter what the intention is.
Perhaps you may try to substitue all uses of the word 'good' with the 'useful' and all uses of the word 'bad' with 'useless' for at least a week.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 05, 2009, 03:09:26 PM
I didn't write this, but I got it off some random webpage on meditation, from the kids section. Deep.
http://meditation.org.au/class1.asp
----------------------------------
Sometimes things aren't what we expect.
Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what people mean, and sometimes for the biggest questions in life everyone has a different answer.
When people talk about God and what we are doing here on earth, for example, you'll find that most people don't agree on very much at all.
If you have heard of the word religion, you might know that there are many different beliefs about who God is or whether he or she exists at all.
Atheists don't believe in God. They say that there is no scientific proof for God's existence. Other people believe in a God that is like a really nice person who loves us all, or that God is just another name for the universe and existence - it just IS.
But do you know what? We think every one is right. How can that be?
Have you ever thought about all the names that water has? We know the liquid is called 'water', it is wet and it is easy for us to see. Then there is 'ice' – it is frozen water and it is so hard it can be like a rock. Then if you heat water up it becomes a 'vapour' or 'steam' and is practically invisible.
Lets think about God like water for a minute. Sometimes he (or she, or it) is invisible like a vapour but if you were to stop and look really closely you would be able to see tiny water droplets in the vapour. Other times, God is like a liquid, that you can swim in and other times God is so real, it is like a block of ice right in front of you.
Sometimes you can't actually see the water, but it still exists. Everything on earth needs water for life. Plants need it, animals need it.
We are all like that too, we all need love for our lives too. To be simple, love is another name for God. So some people say that they don't believe in God, but they still believe in love. So they experience God that is very hard to see, like vapour.
Then there are others that say they can see God like an energy, swim in him, like a liquid. For them God is just as real as drinking water.
Then there are still others that believe that God is as real as a block of ice. If you ran into a block of ice you would crash into it. For some people, God is like that, so real you can't miss her.
Then there other names for God. I might call God - 'love', but someone else says no is he is a person like you and me and his name is 'God', or 'Supreme', or 'Allah', or 'Rama' and others say that God is not a male or a female, that God is more like a 'force' or 'energy'. Do you see what i mean about all the different names for water? ...and all the different ways people think of God?
I don't see what's so "deep" about this - they just postulate a Something which satisfies different contradictory definitions of "God" to different people, and assert that the concept doesn't contradict anything. Monotheism is not a subset of pantheism!
This set of statements in particular annoys me:
Quote from: Lysergic on February 05, 2009, 03:09:26 PM
To be simple, love is another name for God.
Some people have made this assertion. But if by God you mean a 'person' in the sense that he is capable of willful action and emotions, like loving people, forgiving people, wanting people to be happy, desiring that people follow his rules, etc. then Love is not another name for the thing you're talking about; Love as an abstraction/emotion/psychosis/state of mind or whatever the hell it is can't do any of those things.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 05, 2009, 03:09:26 PM
So some people say that they don't believe in God, but they still believe in love.
Sometime last year I ran across the argument that being agnostic with respect to God because you've never personally experienced him is just as ridiculous as a child being agnostic with respect to passionate love just because he hasn't experienced that yet, either. I agree with him completely. I've observed and experienced attraction, fixation, sympathy, and all sorts of desires - but love? Jury's still out on that one.
Quote from: Lysergic on February 05, 2009, 03:09:26 PM
So they experience God that is very hard to see, like vapour.
There is a very big difference between something that doesn't reflect a great deal of visible light and something that doesn't exist.
I still think god is an impersonal universal creative metaforce that gave way to Life and The Process of Sustaining.
Quote from: Kai on February 09, 2009, 04:03:45 AM
I still think god is an impersonal universal creative metaforce that gave way to Life and The Process of Sustaining.
That sounds a lot like the Apache concept of Usen, which Western anthropologists continue to insist on personifying.
Nigel: Can I has more knowledge of this Usen?
Just in case it ever chance to put an anthropologist in their place.
It's always good to be able to knock an anthropologist down a peg or two.
Usen is the overarching force of existence, the uninvolved force that drives... well, everything. It is neither male nor female, it is "everything". I mean, it's pretty vague.
Most anthropologists translate Usen as "God", but to call it a god is a little naive. It's just what IS. It's what started everything. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't care about anyone personally. Usen is what set the universe into motion. It is linguistically categorized as "he" but is neither male nor female... it couldn't be, as it exists on a level on which male and female are totally irrelevant. "Usen" is probably best translated as "The world" or "The universe".
Quote from: Kai on February 09, 2009, 04:03:45 AM
I still think god is an impersonal universal creative metaforce that gave way to Life and The Process of Sustaining.
RUBBISH!
God is a very real individual, who just happens to hate us all.
That's why he made Celine Dion.
And why I got my tongue stuck in that printer that time.
I gotta say, the model that seems most accurate to me for some underlying force of the universe is actually a simplification and de-personalization of pre-institutional zoroastrianism... The ongoing competition between Druj (information entropy) and Ahura Mazda (negentropy), or in other words, the balance of the forces of order and the forces of chaos. Obviously, the order vs chaos thing is an oversimplification -- much of negentropy would be considered chaos, and much of entropy would be considered order, since information content is inversely proportional to the meeting of expectations.
You mean, sort of like how in Discordianism, chaos encompasses everything, and within chaos is order and disorder?
Quote from: Green Tea on February 09, 2009, 08:40:36 AM
It's always good to be able to knock an anthropologist down a peg or two.
Usen is the overarching force of existence, the uninvolved force that drives... well, everything. It is neither male nor female, it is "everything". I mean, it's pretty vague.
Most anthropologists translate Usen as "God", but to call it a god is a little naive. It's just what IS. It's what started everything. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't care about anyone personally. Usen is what set the universe into motion. It is linguistically categorized as "he" but is neither male nor female... it couldn't be, as it exists on a level on which male and female are totally irrelevant. "Usen" is probably best translated as "The world" or "The universe".
That sounds a lot like pantheism the me.
Quote from: Green Tea on February 09, 2009, 06:23:35 PM
You mean, sort of like how in Discordianism, chaos encompasses everything, and within chaos is order and disorder?
Kind of, except that entropy and negentropy don't cleanly correlate to order and chaos any more than good and evil do. But it's the same kind of balance; mostly just that the active domains are separated from the passive domains. Negentropy is close to what McKenna called 'novelty' -- it is basically new and interesting ideas, and the level of negentropy is determined by how difficult it is to predict by referring to existing order, while meanwhile negentropy adds to the existing order, while entropy breaks down order into disorder and adds stuff back into the pool of 'stuff' that negentropy draws from. Sort of like cutting the individual words out of a book and sticking them in a hat: cutting them up is entropy, and picking them out and making sentences out of them that weren't in the original book is negentropy, and it's entropy again when you get bored and stick them back in the hat.
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 09, 2009, 08:17:53 PM
Quote from: Green Tea on February 09, 2009, 06:23:35 PM
You mean, sort of like how in Discordianism, chaos encompasses everything, and within chaos is order and disorder?
Kind of, except that entropy and negentropy don't cleanly correlate to order and chaos any more than good and evil do. But it's the same kind of balance; mostly just that the active domains are separated from the passive domains. Negentropy is close to what McKenna called 'novelty' -- it is basically new and interesting ideas, and the level of negentropy is determined by how difficult it is to predict by referring to existing order, while meanwhile negentropy adds to the existing order, while entropy breaks down order into disorder and adds stuff back into the pool of 'stuff' that negentropy draws from. Sort of like cutting the individual words out of a book and sticking them in a hat: cutting them up is entropy, and picking them out and making sentences out of them that weren't in the original book is negentropy, and it's entropy again when you get bored and stick them back in the hat.
Your example reminded me of Mal-2's statement:
He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.
I believe I can fly!
\
(http://blackgirlthinking.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/r_20kelly.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 09, 2009, 12:36:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on February 09, 2009, 04:03:45 AM
I still think god is an impersonal universal creative metaforce that gave way to Life and The Process of Sustaining.
RUBBISH!
God is a very real individual, who just happens to hate us all.
That's why he made Celine Dion.
And why I got my tongue stuck in that printer that time.
TGRR: Minister of Maltheism.
An update of my youthfully malleable beliefs:
I've conceived of a dualistic approach that is similar to Cartesian Dualism. There is matter and energy, which I am freely applying my vague understanding of physics to be merely Energy. All matter is (in the sense that I intend it) Energy. So the physical universe is just Energy. Then there's Information, which I'm taking to be any abstract form, as per Plato. Information and Energy shape everything there is, in this dualistic approach. Everything from mere objects caused by natural processes (Plain Energy), ideas (Plain Information), and minds (a mix of Energy and Information).
That's my ontological belief matrix thing. For now.
I believe that I can't be arsed to articulate my metaphysical beliefs because I'll just end up changing my mind anyway.
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
I believe that I can't be arsed to articulate my metaphysical beliefs because I'll just end up changing my mind anyway.
Same here.
But maybe it's worth a shot.
The record of changes could be enlightening as well.
Problem is I live inside of Adobe programs, books, and the soft bosom of my girlfriend these days.
Unfortunately, in that order.
Quote from: Felix on February 10, 2009, 11:10:10 PM
An update of my youthfully malleable beliefs:
I've conceived of a dualistic approach that is similar to Cartesian Dualism. There is matter and energy, which I am freely applying my vague understanding of physics to be merely Energy. All matter is (in the sense that I intend it) Energy. So the physical universe is just Energy. Then there's Information, which I'm taking to be any abstract form, as per Plato. Information and Energy shape everything there is, in this dualistic approach. Everything from mere objects caused by natural processes (Plain Energy), ideas (Plain Information), and minds (a mix of Energy and Information).
That's my ontological belief matrix thing. For now.
Felix!
IS THAT YUO?
Quote from: Felix on February 10, 2009, 11:10:10 PM
An update of my youthfully malleable beliefs:
I've conceived of a dualistic approach that is similar to Cartesian Dualism. There is matter and energy, which I am freely applying my vague understanding of physics to be merely Energy. All matter is (in the sense that I intend it) Energy. So the physical universe is just Energy. Then there's Information, which I'm taking to be any abstract form, as per Plato. Information and Energy shape everything there is, in this dualistic approach. Everything from mere objects caused by natural processes (Plain Energy), ideas (Plain Information), and minds (a mix of Energy and Information).
That's my ontological belief matrix thing. For now.
Do we know you?
Hi Roger. Hi Net. :)
Quote from: Net on February 11, 2009, 08:58:48 AM
Quote from: Cainad on February 10, 2009, 11:14:36 PM
I believe that I can't be arsed to articulate my metaphysical beliefs because I'll just end up changing my mind anyway.
Same here.
But maybe it's worth a shot.
The record of changes could be enlightening as well.
Problem is I live inside of Adobe programs, books, and the soft bosom of my girlfriend these days.
Unfortunately, in that order.
True, recording the changes can be interesting. I'd just rather not record it in the form of a series of definitive statements that I end up disagreeing with.
I put atheist, even though that label says nothing about what I believe. That label only tells you that there's at least one thing I don't believe.
While I don't pretend to know why there's a universe with us in it, instead of no universe and/or no us, I think that invoking the concept of god to explain it raises more questions than it answers. I find the spontaneous existence of an unintelligent and purposeless universe much more credible than I find the spontaneous existence of a being capable of purposefully designing and creating a universe.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on February 11, 2009, 07:44:52 PM
I put atheist, even though that label says nothing about what I believe. That label only tells you that there's at least one thing I don't believe.
While I don't pretend to know why there's a universe with us in it, instead of no universe and/or no us, I think that invoking the concept of god to explain it raises more questions than it answers. I find the spontaneous existence of an unintelligent and purposeless universe much more credible than I find the spontaneous existence of a being capable of purposefully designing and creating a universe.
I'm not sure how credible I find either of those arguments. Either may be possible, but both require a lot of 'human reasoning' which I don't trust for shit.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on February 11, 2009, 07:44:52 PM
I don't pretend to know why there's a universe with us in it, instead of no universe and/or no us,
So you believe that you exist and the universe exists. That's a lot of very unfounded faith right there. I don't think I can really be 100% sure that either exists until I get some cold hard evidence.
INCOMING!!!!
:barstool:
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 11, 2009, 08:06:40 PMSo you believe that you exist and the universe exists. That's a lot of very unfounded faith right there. I don't think I can really be 100% sure that either exists until I get some cold hard evidence.
Heh. I believe that it's beyond reasonable doubt that I exist and the universe exists, but I'm aware that isn't foolproof.
At any rate, it seems that things usually go better for me if I behave as if the objects and people around me are real and that my actions have consequences. Whether the barstool is real or not is moot -- I just don't want to be hit over the head with it.
Quote from: Que Si on February 11, 2009, 07:53:07 PMI'm not sure how credible I find either of those arguments. Either may be possible, but both require a lot of 'human reasoning' which I don't trust for shit.
Me neither. I don't consider either to be particularly compelling. I was speaking of their credibility relative to each other, in my own judgment. I don't need either to be true or false, and if I were to become convinced that Deism is true, I don't think it would really make a difference as to how I live my life.
If, on the other hand, I were to become convinced that one of the more vengeful gods were actually behind it, then I probably would change my life to avoid his or her wrath, because I'm a pussy like that.
PMZ,
is praying it's not Cthulhu.
I believe that at one point I had some great ideas about reality and had a freeing enlightenment.
Unfortunatly I forgot them, because part of them was not writing things down.
I do remember how I could act, even if I can't remember why, so untill I remember again i'll just act in a way that I thought was good while I could remember the thing that I can no longer remember, to the best of my ability, while at the same time questioning as much as I can, so long as I remember to do so.
Or not.
Its up to me.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on February 11, 2009, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 11, 2009, 08:06:40 PMSo you believe that you exist and the universe exists. That's a lot of very unfounded faith right there. I don't think I can really be 100% sure that either exists until I get some cold hard evidence.
Heh. I believe that it's beyond reasonable doubt that I exist and the universe exists, but I'm aware that isn't foolproof.
At any rate, it seems that things usually go better for me if I behave as if the objects and people around me are real and that my actions have consequences. Whether the barstool is real or not is moot -- I just don't want to be hit over the head with it.
Quote from: Que Si on February 11, 2009, 07:53:07 PMI'm not sure how credible I find either of those arguments. Either may be possible, but both require a lot of 'human reasoning' which I don't trust for shit.
Me neither. I don't consider either to be particularly compelling. I was speaking of their credibility relative to each other, in my own judgment. I don't need either to be true or false, and if I were to become convinced that Deism is true, I don't think it would really make a difference as to how I live my life.
If, on the other hand, I were to become convinced that one of the more vengeful gods were actually behind it, then I probably would change my life to avoid his or her wrath, because I'm a pussy like that.
PMZ,
is praying it's not Cthulhu.
Hear Hear
I believe, I believe
With every breath that I breathe
You and me can turn a whisper to a scream
I believe, I believe
\
(http://www.concertshots.com/Feb%2003%20Images/cs-BonJovi4-Atlanta21303.JPG)
You'd be horrified how many bad bands and acts have the words "I believe" as part of their lyrics.
It's an autosuggestion trigger for influencing the method of dealing with cognitive dissonance. "I believe that this band doesn't suck nearly as much as they seem to, and that my money was therefore not wasted on this damned 'i believe' song."
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 09, 2009, 08:22:40 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 09, 2009, 08:17:53 PM
Quote from: Green Tea on February 09, 2009, 06:23:35 PM
You mean, sort of like how in Discordianism, chaos encompasses everything, and within chaos is order and disorder?
Kind of, except that entropy and negentropy don't cleanly correlate to order and chaos any more than good and evil do. But it's the same kind of balance; mostly just that the active domains are separated from the passive domains. Negentropy is close to what McKenna called 'novelty' -- it is basically new and interesting ideas, and the level of negentropy is determined by how difficult it is to predict by referring to existing order, while meanwhile negentropy adds to the existing order, while entropy breaks down order into disorder and adds stuff back into the pool of 'stuff' that negentropy draws from. Sort of like cutting the individual words out of a book and sticking them in a hat: cutting them up is entropy, and picking them out and making sentences out of them that weren't in the original book is negentropy, and it's entropy again when you get bored and stick them back in the hat.
Your example reminded me of Mal-2's statement:
He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.
And that there reminds me of a passage from The Process of Sustaining.
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods, but I do have beliefs.
Quote from: Soul Sojourner on February 14, 2009, 06:30:07 AM
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods,
Optimist.
Quote from: Soul Sojourner on February 14, 2009, 06:30:07 AM
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods, but I do have beliefs.
Mammon still jacks your paycheck, just the same.
Quote from: Telarus on February 14, 2009, 06:55:15 AM
Quote from: Soul Sojourner on February 14, 2009, 06:30:07 AM
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods, but I do have beliefs.
Mammon still jacks you paycheck, just the same.
FORUM ORVER.
TELARUS WINS.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2009, 06:35:58 AM
Quote from: Soul Sojourner on February 14, 2009, 06:30:07 AM
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods,
Optimist.
An optimist believes that this is the best of all potential worlds. A pessimist fears that the optimist may be right.
Quote from: Telarus on February 14, 2009, 06:55:15 AM
Quote from: Soul Sojourner on February 14, 2009, 06:30:07 AM
Hmm, I put atheist simply because I believe in no gods, but I do have beliefs.
Mammon still jacks your paycheck, just the same.
:lulz:
Holy Shit! this is seriously funny.
Quote from: Broken AI on February 14, 2009, 10:10:21 PM
QuoteYou'd be horrified how many bad bands and acts have the words "I believe" as part of their lyrics.
Man, I know. I googled it for my reply earlier ITT. Lazy bastards. :lulz: The lack of originality is quite scary.
Last night I saw a band that did a song that comprised repeating the words "settle down" for six minutes straight. I think it was some kind of corny reverse psychology plot.
Quote from: Felix on February 15, 2009, 05:26:36 AM
Quote from: Broken AI on February 14, 2009, 10:10:21 PM
QuoteYou'd be horrified how many bad bands and acts have the words "I believe" as part of their lyrics.
Man, I know. I googled it for my reply earlier ITT. Lazy bastards. :lulz: The lack of originality is quite scary.
Last night I saw a band that did a song that comprised repeating the words "settle down" for six minutes straight. I think it was some kind of corny reverse psychology plot.
WTF?
After 2 minutes, you're supposed to haul them off stage and jam their instruments up their arses.
I would have been mauled; the song wasn't the most horrifying part, everyone else loved them.
Quote from: Felix on February 15, 2009, 05:38:21 AM
I would have been mauled; the song wasn't the most horrifying part, everyone else loved them.
That's when it's time to go totally berserk.
When the police come, just tell them you were slamdancing and got caught up in the mix.
I need to invent a combination boat horn/bear spray canister for things like this.
I suppose Agnostic would be the best lable for me, rationally I understand that nothing can be known about any higher power, and that the idea of any existing at all seems rather unlikely from my point of view(but by no means am I discounting it)
However, I try to ignore my rational self in day to day life and live as if their were a real Eris out there, I don't want to say that I do believe she exists, but sometimes I sorta do.[/failing at explaining his theological position]
you know, i voted back in octoberish, but i never elaborated...
I voted "prefer not to be labeled"- because there is a distinct
Taoist slant, predicated on Christian habit, as pointed out by
So-So some pages back. However, i highly disagree with his
opinions on the accessibility of the Tao Te Ching- high weirdness
in the original PD is just as aloof, and koans and poems for the Tao
are just as nonsensical.
Not only that, but it isn't restricted to Christian and Taoist perspectives.
there's a fair amount of Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam/Sufi, Gnosticism, even Satanism.
basically, how i feel is summed in this cock and repost:
QuoteQuote from: vexati0n on October 14, 2008, 07:38:39 PM
On a serious note, I think there could be more religion in Discordianism than there is, or at least we could frame some elements of it in a religious tone. For example O:M could be seen as a sacrament or ritual that actually produces results. In my IRL experience moreso than online, the act of O:M is useful not only to potentially free a person's brain from its programming, but to help yours stay more free. The thrill of O:M is one reward, and it also become easier to stay outside the programming if you keep it up.
Quote from: ME
The problem is that calling it a ritual or sacrament might lead to making it formulaic like any other ritual, and what should be an exciting act could become a chore that you do mindlessly, resulting in no net gain for you.
one idea i had about the "fer srsly" rituals in the PD was that by seriously practicing a ritual (for someone who is soooo religious, i.e. non-discordant) someone is presented with:
blasphemy/taboo: for those of you haven't experienced religious taboo/weren't raised initially with strong religious backgrounds, performing a blasphemy to a core value is an event that can cause fracture. by, for example, an initiate raised as a devout catholic- eating a hotdog on friday can be strange, or shouting "Flying Babyshit!" during a baptism, or "cursing" someone with the turkey curse... these rituals bring old conditioning to the forefront of the initiate's awareness ("i can't eat a hot dog...it's friday fer chissake!") creating a moment of cognitive dissonance.
some things that might be felt as a result are: fear; guilt; curiosity; intrigue; silliness; etc...
to what degree a person feels this, and what exactly they feel, one may be able to gauge the extent to which old dogmas and memes are present, and what their strength currently is.
With this arena, static rituals are already in place with the PD (i personally wouldn't do very many of them todays), so one could consider OM to be initiation to and practice of the "Dynamic Mysteries" of our Living Religion.
just a thought.
I believe, for realz, that Discordia is among the last, if not THE last, Dynamic/Living religion. By that, i mean: We are a fluid conglomeration, we typically don't prevent "Change" for ourselves individually, or collectively. And we all know that which does not change, dies.
As for the "Mysteries Religion" aspect of it...Everything is a Mystery Religion if you approach it right. Fuck- Myspace is a mystery religion. All initiates that do not understand this: you must start over. Again.
Initiation never ends.
I BELIEVE!!
HAHA!
What is of less importance is "what".
On another note: :fap:
Quote from: Urraco_El_Hechicero on February 18, 2009, 02:17:10 AM
I BELIEVE!!
HAHA!
What is of less importance is "what".
On another note: :fap:
How long you guys think this ones gonna last. Three Hours? A Day?
i saw him last week, he seems like a cool dude
Sigh.
No worries. I expect to be confused with noobs.
If only for destroying heterogenuity in faith.
Quote from: Urraco_El_Hechicero on February 20, 2009, 03:26:50 AM
Sigh.
No worries. I expect to be confused with noobs.
If only for destroying heterogenuity in faith.
:boot:
lold
Quote from: Philly Fillet on February 19, 2009, 10:35:49 PM
Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2009, 11:56:19 PM
Quote from: Philly Fillet on February 17, 2009, 10:21:50 PM
Initiation never ends.
This.
that's a Grant Morrison line from the Invisibles. not to take credit for it.
Which he got from RAW. Which he most likely ripped off from somewhere else: Crowley, Freemasonry, the Ancients of Mu...
I think RAW attributed it to uncle Al.
Definitely know Crowley said it. Sounds potentially Freemasonic or Rosicrucian, however.
Hmmm. The only place I can find it is RAW putting the words in to Crowley's mouth in Masks of the Illuminati. But I could easily believe that AC said it first.
Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 02:04:32 PM
Hmmm. The only place I can find it is RAW putting the words in to Crowley's mouth in Masks of the Illuminati. But I could easily believe that AC said it first.
Quote from: LMNO on December 13, 2004, 03:55:42 PM
"A true initiation never ends" - Crowley.
Ah, Google :lol:
Ha!
NEVER TRUST ME!
:lulz:
LMNO
-researches post hoc.
RAW himself modified the metaphor into Chapel Perilous, didn't he?
'Chapel Perilous' apparently comes from the grailer legends (king arthur &c). It seems that RAW created (or at least independently elucidated) the link between that and the Long Dark Night of the Soul (which is what RAW is actually referring to when he says Chapel Perilous). That said, Chapel Perilous is catchier, so it's more often used these days.
Good to know!
I may be wrong, but I think he also lumped the kabbalistic Da'ath in, as the separation between the lower and higher triangles on the tree of life.
Quite possibly, he tried to shoehorn in Nietzsche's Abyss into this, as well.
And Chorozon as well, I guess.
Yeah, I'm sure that fucker demanded his piece of the pie.
LMNO
-doesn't much like that bastard.
He was ok until he tried to slip a finger up my ass.
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:02:09 PM
And Chorozon as well, I guess.
I think that was the metaphor portrayed by Tsathoggua (Saint Toad) in Illuminatus! when Fission Chips enters Chapel Perilous and gets eaten.
Silly little bitch tried to run me down about a decade ago. I never really forgave him for that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:02:09 PM
And Chorozon as well, I guess.
I think that was the metaphor portrayed by Tsathoggua (Saint Toad) in Illuminatus! when Fission Chips enters Chapel Perilous and gets eaten.
Which is interesting, since I have heard of Yog-Sothoth being linked with Chorozon.
Well, RAW also lumped in pancakes from visitors from sirius with chapel perilous. He wasn't very clear about his distinctions.
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2009, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:02:09 PM
And Chorozon as well, I guess.
I think that was the metaphor portrayed by Tsathoggua (Saint Toad) in Illuminatus! when Fission Chips enters Chapel Perilous and gets eaten.
Which is interesting, since I have heard of Yog-Sothoth being linked with Chorozon.
*nods*
I think that Lovecraft was modeling some very similar concepts with old Yog.
Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 04:06:08 PM
Silly little bitch tried to run me down about a decade ago. I never really forgave him for that.
I've heard you mention this before and i would just LOVE to hear more. I think.
Lawl of Fives writ large.
Also known as...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/LMNOpwnsself.jpg)
maybe someday :wink:
It's kind of embarassing, because it's from the times I was both a Pinealist and a Pagan/Solitary Wiccan.
Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 07:16:16 PM
It's kind of embarassing, because it's from the times I was both a Pinealist and a Pagan/Solitary Wiccan.
Don't be embarrassed by the path you took to get here... Be proud that you didn't stagnate there ;-)
You just want me to reveal personal information so you can mock me 5 months from now... admit it!
Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 08:10:17 PM
You just want me to reveal personal information so you can mock me 5 months from now... admit it!
*looks all innocent*
Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 08:10:17 PM
You just want me to reveal personal information so you can mock me 5 months from now... admit it!
You wont have to wait 5 months, don't worry...
Oh, in that case...
The one thing that Cosmic Trigger taught me is this:
Sirius people are sirius business.
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 08:54:40 PM
The one thing that Cosmic Trigger taught me is this:
Sirius people are sirius business.
*Rat Dies*
:lulz:
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 04:08:35 PM
Well, RAW also lumped in pancakes from visitors from sirius with chapel perilous. He wasn't very clear about his distinctions.
Well, for RAW I think Chapel Perilous is mostly directly identified with any event that broke your concept of reality. Be it an initiation, a near-death experience, aliens or anything of the sort.
I need to read Cosmic Trigger again.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 09:28:55 PM
I need to read Cosmic Trigger again.
I just finished it for the third time... still picked up new stuff LOL
I've started making notes in my dead tree copy. It's great.
I wish the other two were as good.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 09:24:56 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 04:08:35 PM
Well, RAW also lumped in pancakes from visitors from sirius with chapel perilous. He wasn't very clear about his distinctions.
Well, for RAW I think Chapel Perilous is mostly directly identified with any event that broke your concept of reality. Be it an initiation, a near-death experience, aliens or anything of the sort.
That also seems to be where Antero Alli runs with it. The idea of a Karma Mechanic making constant 'adjustments' to deal with the influx of new information, experiences etc...
Considering how RAW didn't really have a firm held
belief in anything (maybe logic) it seems that having a point of view that can process odd bits of reality bending info into a useful existence would be quite helpful.
Chapel Perilous seemed to be even more abstract than that (to me). It seems like all those items you needed to pass through it were the real focus. The wand of being smart or whatever, that stuff. My concept of chapel perilous is that it's constantly happening around us, and though events in our lives may put it into stark relief and shock us, it's always there.
When you're driving your car and listening to the radio, it's there. Are you aware of the drunk bastard with road rage? Do you have what it takes to avoid him? The Chapel is potentially everywhere and you only need to approach it wrong once to lose everything.
i think that's a valid perspective. Reminds me of that Castaneda bit about living as if death were constantly with you.
His stuff would have been so much more interesting if it was marketed as fiction.
ETA: That said:
"Living life as if death was constantly with you" is similar, but implies a certain amount of fatalistic detachment that I have no interest in.
Quote from: Felix on February 21, 2009, 04:52:36 AM
His stuff would have been so much more interesting if it was marketed as fiction.
ETA: That said:
"Living life as if death was constantly with you" is similar, but implies a certain amount of fatalistic detachment that I have no interest in.
I can appreciate that point of view. Chapel Perilous seems more open ended. I'd even go so far as to associate it with Kali. In a lot of ways it's like embracing those awfully awefuls--those creepie weepies that sit in the dark gloomy recesses of the storehouse consciousness.
Thanks for thinking we're cool, I guess.
I think that room-full-of-believers feeling is a matter of cognitive dissonance. People automatically ascribe a certain amount of veracity to widely held beliefs, even if they rationally understand the flaws of those beliefs. Being surrounded by people who think very different thoughts can cause this.
Also I notice that a lot of people are big on "Not caring" about what other people think these days. That is a very unusual social norm, even for modern day society. Not really belief-related, except that it tends to affect the way belief circulates.
I decided that caring what other people believe would put me on the fast track to becoming a fundie. Atheist or otherwise.
Seriously, I've been hanging at at freeratio lately, the atheists seem just as fucking crazy as the christians when they debate religion.
"God isn't real cause a person can't survive in the belly of a whale!"
\
:asshat:
Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 11:02:08 AM
I decided that caring what other people believe would put me on the fast track to becoming a fundie. Atheist or otherwise.
Seriously, I've been hanging at at freeratio lately, the atheists seem just as fucking crazy as the christians when they debate religion.
"God isn't real cause a person can't survive in the belly of a whale!"
\
:asshat:
Tru dat. :fnord:
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 09:41:16 PM
dead tree copy.
is living paper better? or innert paper? im assuming that it will not fall apart with age
but what else is there besides that warm and fuzzy feeling
I usually prefer to have both a digital copy and a dead tree copy of things. Since the dead tree copy must be bought, it legitimizes the digital copy into fair use. Also, I can stick a digital copy of all the books in my room (at last count, something like 400 volumes, not counting manga and reference manuals, with collections counting as one) on a thumbdrive and read it anywhere with a computer, however, I can read precisely zero digital copies of anything if I'm somewhere without a computer.
I tend to prefer not to label myself, but here's giving it a shot:
Best description of my actual theology is Prachettist. Deities get power from the belief that people have in them, not from their innate power. It's belief that fuels Making Shit Happen. This allows me to be an unashamed paradigm whore and have as many short term personal saviors as I want, since it's the belief that makes them valid anyway.
"You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves?"
"Seems to be a major human activity, yes."
Quote from: Not LMNO on February 23, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
"You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves?"
"Seems to be a major human activity, yes."
But my new chains are sparkly! And pink!
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 23, 2009, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: Not LMNO on February 23, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
"You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves?"
"Seems to be a major human activity, yes."
But my new chains are sparkly! And pink!
Really?
I'd have thought you'd go for an iridescent indigo.
OCTARINE OR GTFO
My chains are encrusted with diamonds :D
My chains are painted the color of tempered steel, to look EVEN MORE like steel than regular steel chain.
Quote from: UncannyValleyGirl on February 23, 2009, 07:50:34 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 23, 2009, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: Not LMNO on February 23, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
"You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves?"
"Seems to be a major human activity, yes."
But my new chains are sparkly! And pink!
Really?
I'd have thought you'd go for an iridescent indigo.
Those were last weeks. Next week I'm going for an animated moire pattern in green, yellow, and black.
Mine are all rusty :x
Fucking salt is all over the roads and sidewalks.
Quote from: Felix on February 24, 2009, 12:41:01 AM
My chains are painted the color of tempered steel, to look EVEN MORE like steel than regular steel chain.
Epic :lulz:
My chains are pink and covered in madjicuqwaqqual faerie dust.
Mine are made of Black Iron.
What? Someone had to go there...
Unfortunately, because of the recession, I was not allowed chains.
They just used Elmer's Glue.
Tacky, I know.
Elmer's Glue?
Stop horsing around.
Quote from: Not LMNO on February 23, 2009, 08:15:58 PM
OCTARINE OR GTFO
(http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pics/Chain_link_Steel_Handcuffs.jpg)
Quote from: Could be LMNO on February 24, 2009, 02:32:10 PM
Mine are made of Black Iron.
What? Someone had to go there...
My chains connect the pedals to the back wheel ...
IN SOME SENSE (just for 000)
Aparently they need to be more cost effective, so to save time my chains are a body bag.
i told my coworker* today i was into roman-greek mythology
he then proceeded to link it to racism :roll:
*(same place that i mysteriously found an apple of discord magic markered to the bathroom wall)
to make it better:
he doesnt get Green Day's American idiot
even after i tried to explain that it was about the 51% of the country
something about being untier instead of divider
Quote from: Yatto on February 28, 2009, 03:54:32 AM
i told my coworker* today i was into roman-greek mythology
he then proceeded to link it to racism :roll:
Start feeding him bogus myths that confirm his ignorant assumptions.
wut angle tho
by belonging to a rival sect that's fighting say the temple of Aries? needs link to Thule society
or maybe one that i can say leads to set. and its Greek vs Egypt mindset
or build from the Persian point, after all Sparta (aka Aries) was involved
i might even get my friend in on it, he often makes black jokes
related note
http://en.wimped.org/wiki/Atheists_in_foxholes :fap:
No, just make shit up. Tell him about a myth where there was a god of pure blood or something. He'd never know.
Tell him the word Ayran comes from Ares.
Don't forget to mention you have to sacrafice puppies in his honour.
Quote from: Yatto on February 28, 2009, 03:54:32 AM
i told my coworker* today i was into roman-greek mythology
he then proceeded to link it to racism :roll:
MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO: ALWAYS KEEPING A BROTHA DOWN.
the one true religon is Tsiology
Teutontology. I've simultaneously founded and converted to this new, shiny religion.
I believe that in Times Of Crisis, Humanity turns to Drugs.
Quote from: smokngoat on March 14, 2009, 11:51:47 AM
I believe that in Times Of Crisis, Humanity turns to Drugs.
I believe that the great thing about this country is that everyone is allowed to think as they like, even if they're so utterly, fractally wrong that others cannot possibly share the same reality as the one they are experiencing.
:)
Areligious. Not even atheist, exactly, as I simply do not care.
Although I'm satisfied that Gods do not objectively exist, I don't think their objective existence is relevant to the issue of their importance, since the sbjective universes inhabited by human beings are composed of symbols, of which the gods are condensations.
On the other hand, religion really pisses me off. There's no bullshit like systemised bullshit, that's for fuckin' sure.
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
Discordianism???
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
Discordianism???
:mrgreen:
Although i'd
love to meet a discordian who lives in harmony with natural law.
i just spent the last 6 hours walking, does that count?
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
As I was saying in IRC, it reminds me of Natural Theology which was all the rage amongst Christians in the 19th century. Then it died a quick death thanks to attacks by evolution and Fundamentalism (capital-F Fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)) at the exact same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
Discordianism???
:mrgreen:
Although i'd love to meet a discordian who lives in harmony with natural law.
Define "natural law", please.
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 02:07:04 PM
Define "natural law", please.
no queer policemen
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:43:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 07:36:53 AM
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
Discordianism???
:mrgreen:
Although i'd love to meet a discordian who lives in harmony with natural law.
Define "natural law", please.
Honestly, it was a more comment in jest lightly alluding to Kerry Thornley's Zenarchism that I just finished reading yesterday so it was fresh in my head. FTR, i have no desire to debate this. The passage in question, however:
Quote from: http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/zenarchy.html#zenarchy6
Tao West
In a discussion of Natural Law, the philosophical basis of early American conceptions of liberty, Henry B. Veatch (in an article, "Natural Law: Dead or Alive?" in Literature of Liberty, October-December 1978) writes: "What, though, is this doctrine of so-called 'natural law', that thus had such a long and chequered career, and has even displayed, in the words of more than one authority, the happy faculty of repeatedly being able to bury its own undertakers!"
So it was also with a doctrine called 'tao' which buried its Indian Buddhist missionary undertakers in China by way of a Taoistic response called Ch'an Buddhism that Japanese pronounce as Zen. For when the emperor became a Buddhist, many Taoists joined and influenced the Ch'an sect of that religion rather than loudly resisting its attempts to convert the empire. That is why in Zen today we hear so much about the Tao. For the Ch'an Buddhists did a better job of preserving the spirit of the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu than did the formally Taoist religion which, instead, degenerated into fortune telling and other superstitions.
A similarity in content between Natural Law philosophy and the original Taoism preserved in Zen is uncanny. Both consist of the same common-sense observations about human be-ing in accord with nature and uphold the notion that laws of nature also apply to society. Yet neither view much resembles Social Darwinism, which also claimed to derive its principles from the natural world.
Speaking of Natural Law in the ancient world of the West editor Leonard Liggio comments elsewhere in Literature of Liberty: "The Stoics posited an identification of physics and nomos, nature and law. The wise man lived in harmony with nature; he was not dragged in the train of events." What is that but following the Tao?
Veatch also says in "Natural Law: Dead or Alive?" that the views of Natural Law held by Thomas Aquinas did not go far enough. "But why not," Veatch asks, "consider ethics and politics, as construed in the light of this conception of natural law, an analogous to certain arts, skills, and crafts? Why does the skilled surgeon, for instance make his incision in one way rather than another?"
Exactly the same point is made about an ox butcher in one of the parables of Chaung Tzu. Why make an incision one way instead of another? Following the Tao, an expert butcher cuts between the joints and thus never has to sharpen his blade. Although a good surgeon is anything but a butcher, incisions must just the same be made one way and not another. This fact can be generalized to all reasonable human activity, including construction of social arrangements. So we see there are rights, or naturally right ways to behave, ways of the Tao, that take conditions into consideration, as well as ecology and sociology. Therefore it is possible with common sense to distinguish between natural ethics that work and unnatural moralities that eventually only produce widespread misery.
If Tao is not Natural Law or, in other words, if Natural Law is not Tao independently discovered by Western philosophers, then what is the difference between them? Alan Watts says in Psychotherapy East and West: "The whole literature of Taoism shows a deep and intelligent interest in the patterns and processes of the natural world and a desire to model human life upon the observable principles of nature as distinct from the arbitrary principles of a social order resting upon violence." That is exactly the project of Natural Law philosophy!
I'm torn between two not quite accurate choices. . .
Atheist - I believe in no gods
Atheist - there are no gods, fact- there are also no fairies at the bottom of my garden, I can't actually prove it but that hardly makes my healthy scepticism viv a vis the likelihood of their existence a "belief"
I believe in Eris as an entity but do not follow other Gods
I believe that Eris as a useful heuristic but I do not follow 'her' any more than I follow any of the other non-existent Gods people are so prone to invent
also - how is this project going Cramulus?
but since I self-define as an atheist that's what got my vote
Quote from: B_R|S on June 08, 2009, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:57:09 AM
Found a label for my beliefs.
Religious Naturalism.
http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Naturalism
There's even a link to Kauffman's book on Emergence in the first link lol
sounds a bit like Taoism for 'round-eyes' ;) you know, people living in harmony with 'natural law'.
You can definitely see strings of it in Tao Te Ching and other eastern religions. Likewise, it has roots in the Naturalistic Pantheism of Spinoza (though his doctrine of final causes is completely wack and not in line with Religious Naturalism).
What I find so nice about this is that I've been using my emergence language and talking about The Process of Sustaining for years now, and these people more or less are on my level, mixing science and religion in the same way I've been going about it.
See, I'm familiar with this "Natural Law" movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party
Quote from: Nigel on June 08, 2009, 05:07:25 PM
See, I'm familiar with this "Natural Law" movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law_Party
I actually voted Natural Law in one election. Kinda like spoiling your ballot paper but the giggle you get is better
you know - I'm surprised that out of 131 votes, there's ZERO Christians, Jews, or Muslims in the mix.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:50 PM
you know - I'm surprised that out of 131 votes, there's ZERO Christians, Jews, or Muslims in the mix.
it's either a weird anomaly, or we produce some powerful peer pressure.
Does going to Catholic mass weekly count?
not unless you REALLY believe it
Quote from: Cramulus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:50 PM
you know - I'm surprised that out of 131 votes, there's ZERO Christians, Jews, or Muslims in the mix.
I'm not going to say that it is impossible to believe in the Abrahamic God and be a Discordian at the same time, but the cognitive dissonance would be enough to send anyone to the looney bin. Christianity is all about submitting to an all powerful Father figure. Not exactly something that meshes well with Discordianism.
Though some interpretations of Jesus posit he was a master of O:MF
QuoteOne school of biblical study reads many of Jesus' most famous and apparently submissive aphorisms as sophisticated XanatosGambits for the exploited to use against their exploiters, without resorting to violence. Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers cites three such examples:
* Give the undergarment (giving the shirt off your back). In Jesus' time, a creditor could sue a debtor for the debtor's outer garment if they had no other means of paying. Obviously, a person would have to be very poor if they could only afford to pay off their debts with their outer robes. Now Jesus, viewing poverty as an unjust, socially created phenomenon, counseled resistance. If any of his poor followers were sued for their outer garment, he advised them to give it and their undergarment to their creditor. This would be shaming for them, but even more so to the creditor, the cause of their nakedness, and would illustrate the injustice of a system which humiliated its victims in such a fasion.
* Walk the extra mile. Under Roman law, Roman soldiers were allowed to order citizens to carry their (very heavy) packs for them while marching, but only for one mile. The penalties for soldiers who forced citizens to carry the packs further than one mile were stiff. Jesus told his followers that if a soldier forced them to carry his pack for a mile, they should offer to carry further. This leaves the soldier in a bit of a dilemma. He doesn't know how to respond.
* Turn The Other Cheek. Jesus said "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." In the Middle East, the left hand was never used for touching another person. Therefore, the only way someone could strike you on the right cheek was with a backhanded blow, as from a superior to an inferior, rather than a slap or punch, which was reserved for equals. Jesus, radical egalitarian that he was, wanted his followers to resist such attempts to "put them in their place." By turning the left cheek on the aggressor, a victim forced them either to deliver a punch or slap, acknowledging them as equals, or to use the left hand, which would be deeply shaming, or to back off. In any eventually, the victim has resisted being labeled an inferior.
I'm tempted to go for the :cn: on some of these, but regardless, I really like those interpretations.
As to the above question, there used to be an Xtian Discordian or two here, once upon a time.
And if I had to choose one of the Big Three Gods, I'd probably become one of those Jews who spends their whole day arguing about the Bible, as that seems to be a behavior most befitting a Discordian.
Either that, or a Sufi.
Yeah. They sound plausible, but I'd like a historical sociologist to verify them for sure.
Most Xtian Discordians seem to take the "Jesus as revolutionary rabble-rouser" interpretation in my experience, and usually consider most interpretation since then to be bunk (and before as well). Its picking and choosing of course, but you could do worse.
Quote from: LMNO on June 11, 2009, 12:44:28 PM
[snip]if I had to choose one of the Big Three Gods,[snip]
Curly Moe or Larry -
or are you suggesting the people of the book have corralled themselves three different deities . . .?
and did you notice how I circumcised your quote there, didya, didya?
I'd be more interested in some evidence that Jesus actually existed, before determining if he was a mindfucker, a fucker or just fucked ;-)
Why would that be important to you?
Quote from: LMNO on June 11, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
Why would that be important to you?
Well, until we figure out if Jesus was a real person, or a fictional entity, its rather difficult to make any conclusions about 'what he said/did'. We simply don't know if Jesus said those things, or if someone wrote them down and attributed them to Jesus at some point, or if multiple people wrote them, attributing them to Jesus... and then they got collected together.
Otherwise its all just speculation.
Personally, I went from thinking we had iron clad evidence that Jesus was a real person to thinking that we had strong evidence that he didn't exist, to my current position which is sort of a 'Fuck if I know, but the whole thing looks shady' kind of stance.
Well, do we really know if Odyssyus actually existed, and did the things he did, or do we take the stories as cultural and archetypical lessons and examples?
Quote from: LMNO on June 11, 2009, 03:43:23 PM
Well, do we really know if Odyssyus actually existed, and did the things he did, or do we take the stories as cultural and archetypical lessons and examples?
Well, when I read things that "Odyssyus" did, I read them with the assumption that Homer is saying X using Odyssyus as a character. The character may be based on a real person, but there is no assumption or analysis of "Who was Odyssus, why did He Says X" because we assume that whatever was said, was likely a fictional version of anything that might actually have been said by a real Odyssus. The words, phrases and views in Iliad and the Odyssey tell us about Homer.
With Jesus, we have a similar problem. We have no evidence that he existed, so we must assume that either A) He existed and the Bible contains stuff he said; B) He didn't exist and someone made all this stuff up; C) He didn't exist and multiple someones made all this stuff up, which got mixed and remixed into what we have today; D) He did exist, but the record is a hyperbole of stories from previous deities, heroes and messiah figures; E) Unknown.
To be able to say "Jesus was prankster" or "Jesus was a rabble rouser" or "Jesus was..." we need first to figure out if Jesus was at all. Otherwise, all we can talk about is a character in a story... at which point, "Jesus was a..." becomes a silly argument since we don't know if Jesus said anything at all, or if the things attributed to him came over time from multiple sources.
In my opinion, the Biblical account of Jesus appears to be pretty badly fudged. So any conclusions or arguments based on the Gospel about what Jesus 'really was' seem to be putting the cart before the horse, IMO.
. . . my understanding is that there is quite enough non-biblical evidence to show that Jesus was a real historical character but I get a distinct vibe from your post that you would find the task disturbing - that said . . . millions of people over two millennia have believed in the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels both biblical and otherwise [or acted as though they believed, or pretended that they believed, or re-written to their own preference and then 'believed']. Our whole damn society, and it pretty much doesn't matter which one you belong to or which ones you descend from, is shot through with Jesusism so it really is totally irrelevant what the "truth" of the matter is, the effects of Jesus's words historical or fictional are there in plain sight for anyone to see.
Quote from: MMIX on June 11, 2009, 06:47:58 PM
. . . my understanding is that there is quite enough non-biblical evidence to show that Jesus was a real historical character
There is actually no non-biblical evidence that Jesus was a real historical character. Believe me, it was a year of hell ;-) Basically, there are some passages in historians accounts which mention either someone with a similar name, a reference to the beliefs of Christians or in a couple of cases, fraud that was stuck into the books later. One would think that had a guy been running around raising the dead, curing the sick and walking on water... he might have gotten a mention in the local Variety section if nothing else ;-)
Quote
but I get a distinct vibe from your post that you would find the task disturbing
Nope, I'[ve done it before and would gladly jump in to examine any new data as well. I have no problem with the possibility that Jesus may have existed. But I'm loathe to interpret 'who he really was' until I figure out 'if he really was.
Quote
- that said . . . millions of people over two millennia have believed in the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels both biblical and otherwise [or acted as though they believed, or pretended that they believed, or re-written to their own preference and then 'believed'].
They also believed the Earth was flat and the Sun went round the earth. The Sun and the Earth are the two biggest things in human perception.... if they got that wrong for 2000 years, I'm not so trusting on their opinion of a dead Jew.
Quote
Our whole damn society, and it pretty much doesn't matter which one you belong to or which ones you descend from, is shot through with Jesusism so it really is totally irrelevant what the "truth" of the matter is, the effects of Jesus's words historical or fictional are there in plain sight for anyone to see.
Well, sure but we can say the same of other societies and their gods... that doesn't mean we should examine Zeus' speeches to see what kind of guy he was.... We can examine him to see what kind of Archetype he was being used to represent by his followers... and we could do that with Jesus too.
But that's different than saying "Was Jesus a Hippie, Rabble Rouser or Mindfucker?"
My ninth grade history teacher taught us about Jesus as a real person... :|
Should I sue?
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 11, 2009, 07:25:17 PM
My ninth grade history teacher taught us about Jesus as a real person... :|
Should I sue?
:lulz:
Yes, for the lulz.
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 11, 2009, 07:25:17 PM
My ninth grade history teacher taught us about Jesus as a real person... :|
Should I sue?
You should have the textbooks banned and burned.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on June 11, 2009, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on June 11, 2009, 07:25:17 PM
My ninth grade history teacher taught us about Jesus as a real person... :|
Should I sue?
You should have the textbooks that teacher banned and burned.
traditional solutions - if not always the best usually the urckiest
urckiest? Is that the 1,000,001st word?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on June 11, 2009, 08:29:44 PM
urckiest? Is that the 1,000,001st word?
goddrang but it would be fucktabulous if it were!
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 11, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: MMIX on June 11, 2009, 06:47:58 PM
. . . my understanding is that there is quite enough non-biblical evidence to show that Jesus was a real historical character
There is actually no non-biblical evidence that Jesus was a real historical character. Believe me, it was a year of hell ;-) Basically, there are some passages in historians accounts which mention either someone with a similar name, a reference to the beliefs of Christians or in a couple of cases, fraud that was stuck into the books later. One would think that had a guy been running around raising the dead, curing the sick and walking on water... he might have gotten a mention in the local Variety section if nothing else ;-)
Quote
but I get a distinct vibe from your post that you would find the task disturbing
Nope, I'[ve done it before and would gladly jump in to examine any new data as well. I have no problem with the possibility that Jesus may have existed. But I'm loathe to interpret 'who he really was' until I figure out 'if he really was.
Quote
- that said . . . millions of people over two millennia have believed in the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels both biblical and otherwise [or acted as though they believed, or pretended that they believed, or re-written to their own preference and then 'believed'].
They also believed the Earth was flat and the Sun went round the earth. The Sun and the Earth are the two biggest things in human perception.... if they got that wrong for 2000 years, I'm not so trusting on their opinion of a dead Jew.
Quote
Our whole damn society, and it pretty much doesn't matter which one you belong to or which ones you descend from, is shot through with Jesusism so it really is totally irrelevant what the "truth" of the matter is, the effects of Jesus's words historical or fictional are there in plain sight for anyone to see.
Well, sure but we can say the same of other societies and their gods... that doesn't mean we should examine Zeus' speeches to see what kind of guy he was.... We can examine him to see what kind of Archetype he was being used to represent by his followers... and we could do that with Jesus too.
But that's different than saying "Was Jesus a Hippie, Rabble Rouser or Mindfucker?"
IMO the whole importance of Jesus being real thing came from the christians who, as is their wont, threw out the baby and then drank the bathwater.
The raising the dead, the walking on water, healing teh sick with voodoo... These
only mean anything to a christian
if Jesus was a real guy. Christians (in general) have no concept of metaphor, especially in relation to the Jesus myth. He had to be real and he had to do the superpowers otherwise anything he said was utterly meaningless.
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 11, 2009, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: MMIX on June 11, 2009, 06:47:58 PM
. . . my understanding is that there is quite enough non-biblical evidence to show that Jesus was a real historical character
There is actually no non-biblical evidence that Jesus was a real historical character. Believe me, it was a year of hell ;-) Basically, there are some passages in historians accounts which mention either someone with a similar name, a reference to the beliefs of Christians or in a couple of cases, fraud that was stuck into the books later. One would think that had a guy been running around raising the dead, curing the sick and walking on water... he might have gotten a mention in the local Variety section if nothing else ;-)
Quote
but I get a distinct vibe from your post that you would find the task disturbing
Nope, I'[ve done it before and would gladly jump in to examine any new data as well. I have no problem with the possibility that Jesus may have existed. But I'm loathe to interpret 'who he really was' until I figure out 'if he really was.
Quote
- that said . . . millions of people over two millennia have believed in the historical Jesus as presented in the gospels both biblical and otherwise [or acted as though they believed, or pretended that they believed, or re-written to their own preference and then 'believed'].
They also believed the Earth was flat and the Sun went round the earth. The Sun and the Earth are the two biggest things in human perception.... if they got that wrong for 2000 years, I'm not so trusting on their opinion of a dead Jew.
Quote
Our whole damn society, and it pretty much doesn't matter which one you belong to or which ones you descend from, is shot through with Jesusism so it really is totally irrelevant what the "truth" of the matter is, the effects of Jesus's words historical or fictional are there in plain sight for anyone to see.
Well, sure but we can say the same of other societies and their gods... that doesn't mean we should examine Zeus' speeches to see what kind of guy he was.... We can examine him to see what kind of Archetype he was being used to represent by his followers... and we could do that with Jesus too.
But that's different than saying "Was Jesus a Hippie, Rabble Rouser or Mindfucker?"
IMO the whole importance of Jesus being real thing came from the christians who, as is their wont, threw out the baby and then drank the bathwater.
The raising the dead, the walking on water, healing teh sick with voodoo... These only mean anything to a christian if Jesus was a real guy. Christians (in general) have no concept of metaphor, especially in relation to the Jesus myth. He had to be real and he had to do the superpowers otherwise anything he said was utterly meaningless.
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 12, 2009, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage
Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just
does not matter, and especially to people around here as evidenced by 100% of the replies to Cramulus's poll totally failing to acknowledge him as their redeemer!
I am also intrigued as to why we might want to give more credence to the views of an historical sociologist than to Walter Wink.
Wow. I'm the first Monotheist here. Shit.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 13, 2009, 12:49:27 AM
Wow. I'm the first Monotheist here. Shit.
"I believe in Eris as an entity but do not follow other Gods", "Eastern somethingorother" and "Something else not on this list" can all be monotheistic options.
Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 13, 2009, 03:49:13 AM
Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option.
That's okay. You can be a follower of the Abrahamic God, AND a Discordian. We won't kill you for it.
The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2009, 08:30:07 PM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 13, 2009, 03:49:13 AM
Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option.
That's okay. You can be a follower of the Abrahamic God, AND a Discordian. We won't kill you for it.
The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.
:potd:
QuoteThe other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.
And in the process, screwing up the beliefs they are supposed to believe in. Funny that.
Yeah, well, see the TFYS,S thread about Grade 5 Syndrome:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21062.0
How the hell did I get in here? Where's the toilet? Oh! Sorry!
What do I really believe? I believe that everything in the space-time universe must have an explanation for its existence, so there must be at least one explanation, for the existence of the whole shebang, somewhere outside of the space-time continuum. Out there, it can have no size, shape, location, or motion, no outside or inside, no number (nix the multiplicity)--'cause its "outside" of space. It can have no beginning or end, no change, no events, no action, no transition--'cause it's "outside" of time. Whatever explains the universe is closer to the Brahman than to any of the Hindu deities. We may call it "the Grand Mystery" or "spirit", but I don't think it'll match up well with any deity from any holy book or mythology.
But since everything including we ourselves come from that source of all being, isn't it to be expected that we all would seek to know that thing, and share it with each other when we think we've found it? Isn't it just like us to make a bunch of religions based on different visions of the one Grand Mystery and then kill each other off for not believing the same way? I mean, ain't that why we're Erisians? It's like God says in that Randy Newman song, he says, "...that's why I love mankind!"
Elezar the Apostate
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 14, 2009, 01:05:18 AM
QuoteThe other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.
And in the process, screwing up the beliefs they are supposed to believe in. Funny that.
:monkeydance:
Quote from: Elezar th Apostate on June 14, 2009, 10:15:05 AMWhat do I really believe? I believe that everything in the space-time universe must have an explanation for its existence, so there must be at least one explanation, for the existence of the whole shebang, somewhere outside of the space-time continuum.
(emphaseses added)
that does not logically follow.
doesn't mean it's untrue, but you cannot logically draw that conclusion ("so") from just the beliefs you stated.
QuoteOut there, it can have no size, shape, location, or motion, no outside or inside, no number (nix the multiplicity)--'cause its "outside" of space. It can have no beginning or end, no change, no events, no action, no transition--'cause it's "outside" of time. Whatever explains the universe is closer to the Brahman than to any of the Hindu deities. We may call it "the Grand Mystery" or "spirit", but I don't think it'll match up well with any deity from any holy book or mythology.
But since everything including we ourselves come from that source of all being, isn't it to be expected that we all would seek to know that thing, and share it with each other when we think we've found it?
again, your last conclusion does not logically follow. doesnt mean it's untrue again, maybe it is to be expected (by who is another question), but you gave no reason to assume so.
QuoteIsn't it just like us to make a bunch of religions based on different visions of the one Grand Mystery and then kill each other off for not believing the same way?
for example, this could be a result of originating from that One Thing, just as well. in fact, as long as I go along with (my personal idea of) that one thing hypothesis, I believe it is (a result).
Triple Zero, everything you say is true, at least I won't be picky. This illustrates most superbly the uselessness of logic in philosophical discussion. It invariably requires the discussion be restricted to the parameters of approved logical forms, and those forms are, often, incapable of taking any discussion anywhere beyond the statement of fact. If you wish to understand what I'm saying, I can go into more detail on the first point. You can also look up the article by Bran th' Blessed at Witchvox (he only submitted one thus far). If you are a skilled sophist, you may always be able to argue against any conclusion, or for it as may please you, but if it becomes more important to find fault than to find truth, you will find only what you seek.
I'm a mystic and a poet. I tell you only what I believe. It's up to you to accept or reject it. I've done my part by putting it out there. If you feel there may be something of value to you in what I've written, ask me to clarify certasin points and I will.
Thanks for reading and responding to my post.
Elezar the Apostate
Hello Elezar. Interesting belief structure.
Quote from: MMIX on June 12, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 12, 2009, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage
Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter
It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.
Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.
If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.
Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"
That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.
*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 15, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: MMIX on June 12, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 12, 2009, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage
Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter
It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.
Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.
If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.
Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"
That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.
*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.
This is the correct donkey that has been tied up, which no one has ridden. :lulz:
As an ex fundie, I concur with P3Nt's view... if it became, somehow, irrefutably obvious that the scriptures were in ANY WAY errant, it would destroy a number of different faiths (assuming we could get past their cognitive dissonance). For example, Jesus performed miracles for two reasons: First, and most important it showed that God was with Jesus, much like Moses coming to the Israelites after seeing the Bush. YHVH gave Moses magic powers to give himself leprosy and turn his walking stick into a snake. All of this was to provide direct evidence that this WAS God's representative on Earth. Secondly, Jesus whole life had to be a fulfillment of numerous 'prophecies' (or at least what later Church Fathers deemed to be prophecies) to prove that he was the Messiah.
Further, most Fundies hold the scripture in Peter sacrosanct:
All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial for Teaching, Reproving, Setting Things Straight.. etc etc. I didn't quote it precisely. Anyway, this means that ANY 'error', exaggeration, hyperbole or tall tale in the Bible would mean either ALL SCRIPTURES are not inspired, or occasionally God inspired fiction, neither option would be acceptable to most of the believers.
If it ever became 100% evident that Jesus was just a man, even just a man with good ideas... then Christianity as we know it would probably collapse. Christianity, unlike Judaism is a transcendental system. The Christian suffers now, for Glory later. They have faith, an "assured expectation of the things hoped for, though not yet beheld" (according to Paul). Most Christian faiths hold that when you die you go to heaven (or hell). This is based on literal interpretations of passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures, particularly regarding Jesus. If those passages are fraudulent, or meant as metaphor, then the hope for everlasting life in the Kingdom of God is suddenly in question.
If you're a Christian that's deep in the metaphysics of your belief system, Jesus must be more than a man for another reason. He MUST have been a completely PERFECT man. See, Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. According to scripture "The wages of sin are death" thus Adam and Eve were imperfect and condemned to die. Since they were imperfect, they could no longer create perfect children... all humans then become imperfect and doomed to die. YHVH makes a way out though. The very first prophecy in the Bible sets the stage for the entire Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief system... everything else in the Bible is in support of this theme.
Quote
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Now, the savvy Bible Student understands that the 'serpent' here was a puppet under the control of Satan. Therefore, God was promising that one of the offspring of the woman would bruise the serpent/Satan in the head (death blow) while the serpent would bruise him only in the heel (minor inconvenience). Now, this is where stuff gets really whacked out, but it still requires supermadjickal Jesus.
Adam was a perfect man and he failed to follow God perfectly. His sin therefore had to be balanced. The only way to pay back (cause God is the Cosmic Justice of the Peace...) the blood of a perfect man, is with the blood of a perfect man because a perfect man would be the only one whose blood isn't already condemned. Jesus, being born of a virgin through super magical YHVH sperm, creates just such a being. A man (offspring of woman) who is perfect (cause he came directly from God, without imperfect humans mucking about in Mary's uterus). He remained without sin for 33 years and then died. Death is the cost of sin, If Jesus didn't sin, then the blood shed was not payment for his sins. Instead it became repayment for Adam's sin. It balanced the cosmic scales and YHVH got a blood sacrifice cause he's a bastard.
Even without the resurrection, the above has to be true in most Christian belief systems. If Jesus were just a man, or just a prophet, then he was a sinful human... and therefore not a equal payment for Adam's sin... therefore all humans would be condemned to die.
Many Christian belief systems must have faith that Jesus was WAY MORE than just a man.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 15, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: MMIX on June 12, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 12, 2009, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage
Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter
It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.
Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.
If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.
Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"
That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.
*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.
This is all great material - totally irrelevant to my point but stonking stuff just the same, well actually tbh it may it sounded better the first time I heard it . . . you know, novelty value and such
and just to repeat the point I was actually making and not the one you think you are referencing:-
Quote Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said, so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was . .
. etc, etc
and thanks for the sermon Brother Ratatosk but I'm pretty sure the same proviso applies to your material, fascinating, but not relevant to the point I made.
The words and actions
attributed to Jesus can be perfectly adequately analysed and interpreted/re-interpreted without any reference at all to whether he was an historic individual/ a mythological personage/ a useful political icon/ whatever / whatever
Rat, your response was just great.
Quote from: MMIX on June 15, 2009, 06:38:21 PM
The words and actions attributed to Jesus can be perfectly adequately analysed and interpreted/re-interpreted without any reference at all to whether he was an historic individual/ a mythological personage/ a useful political icon/ whatever / whatever
Well, sure... anyone can analyze anything in any way they choose. Part of the analysis though, particularly if we gonna draw any conclusions about Jesus, need to be considered in light of his existence or non-existence. For example, if Jesus were a real person and really said the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was a Mindfucker, would be meaty stuff to dig into.
If however, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of a Jewish writer in the first century and wrote the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the author and would be meaty stuff to dig into, from a different perspective.
If, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of multiple Jewish writers in the first century and they collaborated while writing the lines Cain quoted from, then the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the authors and would be meaty stuff to dig into, from a different perspective.
If, we were to determine that Jesus was the creation of multiple Jewish writers in the first century who were occasionally stealing material from each other, past myths, past messiahs and additionally made shit up as they went (and then adding a heap of scribes over a period of centuries tweaking the words to fit their views...)... The the lines Cain quoted from and the conclusion that Jesus was portrayed as a Mindfucker by the authors suddenly turns into a case of the Law of Fives... or might be a meaty topic to dig into, based on the idea that they describe an archetype by accident which included some Mindfucking aspects.
The context of the written word
and its intentionality, plays a big part in analyzing the stuff written/said. Where these examples intentionally placed there by an author/authors working in concert, or are they artifacts of a smushed up bunch of legends/myths/bits of historical fact/cribbed material that unintentionally appear in the text.
Of course, as a bit of mindfuckery, it would be good to build on Cain's argument and use it to 'prove' that Jesus was really Erisian. :lulz:
Jesus was a roman soldier
Jesus was the waiter
at a little Tex-Mex diner
When it came to bringing water
there was never someone finer
He fed multitudes of people
with fish as taco filling
When a customer was poor
he would pray and split the billing.
Jesus was an artist
painting pictures from his head
Not with oils, inks or brushes
but with fingerpaints instead
His "Portrait of Myself"
was what really made him proud.
But when someone bought it
they renamed it "The Shroud".
Jesus was a Hippie,
with his every brain cell fried
when cops caught him a-dealing
they say he was crucified.
He spent 3 days in lockup
spent 3 nights as well
and when he finally got out
he said he survived hell!
People say all kinds of stuff
about Jesus' life
Some say he was a hero,
some say he had a wife
Some say he's non-existent
some say he's God himselves,
I say he works at the liquor store
stocking wine upon the shelves!
ewww auto-canniboozlism ITT
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 15, 2009, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 15, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: MMIX on June 12, 2009, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 12, 2009, 03:55:48 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
My personal opinion is he either didn't exist or he was just some poor schmuck who held up a protest banner one day and was promptly beaten to death in the street by a centurion who wasn't in the mood for any nonsense that day. Then a whole bunch of bog standard, done to death, myth and legend was applied to him by the guys who put his dumb ass up to waving the banner in the first place. The jesus story, to the best of my knowledge does not contain a single original element.
I concur. Most of the extraordinary claims about Jesus were made before about other "Sons of Gods". The Theraputes, Mithras, etc etc
If Jesus was real, he was very unoriginal.
I totally agree, but Cain's post was offering a different interpretation on the stuff Jesus is supposed to have said,so it doesn't matter whether Jesus was
1] real
2] God's son
3] a saucy sailor
4] an alien plant OR
5] a fucking cabbage
Don't matter whether he lived or died, was a swinger or a celibate, screwed Mary Magdalen or screwed in a lightbulb, It really just does not matter
It matters absolutely to his followers. They know nothing of philosophy. Superhuman powers is the only language they understand.
Jesus = Gods son and magical superninja with recover from dead, walk on water and transmutation superpowers.
If jesus had not these powers and you could somehow prove it, irrefutably*, christianity would collapse.
Anything christ is reported to have said in the bible (other than thou shalt/shalt not) is filtered out by the believer. It's just a set up to a punchline which is always along the lines of "Then Jesus dids't wave his hands, all mystical and shit, and lo a bunny didst appear from the hat"
That's the only important bit - the magical powers. Without them jesus would have no authority, therefore the guys he left in charge would have no authority, therefore they would not obey their masters.
*irrefutable proof is impossible in this situation since christians are programmed to ignore both irrefutable proof and simple logic. It's like trying to force an amputee to shake your hand.
This is the correct donkey that has been tied up, which no one has ridden. :lulz:
As an ex fundie, I concur with P3Nt's view... if it became, somehow, irrefutably obvious that the scriptures were in ANY WAY errant, it would destroy a number of different faiths (assuming we could get past their cognitive dissonance). For example, Jesus performed miracles for two reasons: First, and most important it showed that God was with Jesus, much like Moses coming to the Israelites after seeing the Bush. YHVH gave Moses magic powers to give himself leprosy and turn his walking stick into a snake. All of this was to provide direct evidence that this WAS God's representative on Earth. Secondly, Jesus whole life had to be a fulfillment of numerous 'prophecies' (or at least what later Church Fathers deemed to be prophecies) to prove that he was the Messiah.
Further, most Fundies hold the scripture in Peter sacrosanct: All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial for Teaching, Reproving, Setting Things Straight.. etc etc. I didn't quote it precisely. Anyway, this means that ANY 'error', exaggeration, hyperbole or tall tale in the Bible would mean either ALL SCRIPTURES are not inspired, or occasionally God inspired fiction, neither option would be acceptable to most of the believers.
If it ever became 100% evident that Jesus was just a man, even just a man with good ideas... then Christianity as we know it would probably collapse. Christianity, unlike Judaism is a transcendental system. The Christian suffers now, for Glory later. They have faith, an "assured expectation of the things hoped for, though not yet beheld" (according to Paul). Most Christian faiths hold that when you die you go to heaven (or hell). This is based on literal interpretations of passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures, particularly regarding Jesus. If those passages are fraudulent, or meant as metaphor, then the hope for everlasting life in the Kingdom of God is suddenly in question.
If you're a Christian that's deep in the metaphysics of your belief system, Jesus must be more than a man for another reason. He MUST have been a completely PERFECT man. See, Adam and Eve were perfect humans until they sinned. According to scripture "The wages of sin are death" thus Adam and Eve were imperfect and condemned to die. Since they were imperfect, they could no longer create perfect children... all humans then become imperfect and doomed to die. YHVH makes a way out though. The very first prophecy in the Bible sets the stage for the entire Jewish, Muslim and Christian belief system... everything else in the Bible is in support of this theme.
Quote
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Now, the savvy Bible Student understands that the 'serpent' here was a puppet under the control of Satan. Therefore, God was promising that one of the offspring of the woman would bruise the serpent/Satan in the head (death blow) while the serpent would bruise him only in the heel (minor inconvenience). Now, this is where stuff gets really whacked out, but it still requires supermadjickal Jesus.
Adam was a perfect man and he failed to follow God perfectly. His sin therefore had to be balanced. The only way to pay back (cause God is the Cosmic Justice of the Peace...) the blood of a perfect man, is with the blood of a perfect man because a perfect man would be the only one whose blood isn't already condemned. Jesus, being born of a virgin through super magical YHVH sperm, creates just such a being. A man (offspring of woman) who is perfect (cause he came directly from God, without imperfect humans mucking about in Mary's uterus). He remained without sin for 33 years and then died. Death is the cost of sin, If Jesus didn't sin, then the blood shed was not payment for his sins. Instead it became repayment for Adam's sin. It balanced the cosmic scales and YHVH got a blood sacrifice cause he's a bastard.
Even without the resurrection, the above has to be true in most Christian belief systems. If Jesus were just a man, or just a prophet, then he was a sinful human... and therefore not a equal payment for Adam's sin... therefore all humans would be condemned to die.
Many Christian belief systems must have faith that Jesus was WAY MORE than just a man.
I get the impression that most christians don't overthink it this much. This is theology stuff. I think a lot of them boil it down to "I'm going to heaven because Jesus is the son of God and I like him".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IETvxCQAa1M
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 16, 2009, 06:56:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IETvxCQAa1M
not available in UK
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2009, 08:30:07 PM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 13, 2009, 03:49:13 AM
Ya, okay. What I meant was that I was the only one that went with the Christianity, Islam, Judaism option.
That's okay. You can be a follower of the Abrahamic God, AND a Discordian. We won't kill you for it.
The other Abrahamic followers probably will, though.
There's actually a group called Discordians for Jesus. They see Jesus as an anti-establishment rebel who completely mindfucked people (just one example--telling his followers who were completely oppossed to cannibalism to eat his body and drink his blood).
I was recently honored with the rights to use an interview with one of the original Erisians who believes in Jesus. It wil appear in the Operation Mindfuck issue of Intermittens. So you aren't the only Discordian for Jesus. :)
Cool.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 27, 2009, 05:24:51 AM
Cool.
I was totally kidding. We're gonna persecute the fuck out of you.
:lulz:
I dunno. This talk about Jesus at a discordian site, it just kinda put me off my breakfast. WWED?
Elezar the Apostate
Quote from: Elezar th Apostate on June 27, 2009, 05:54:30 PM
I dunno. This talk about Jesus at a discordian site, it just kinda put me off my breakfast. WWED?
Elezar the Apostate
It is my firm belief that Jesus was either trolling, or was the best PR man EVER.
I think Paul did most of the PR work.
QuoteWe're gonna persecute the fuck out of you.
Not to sound cocky, but bring it. My religion has much more experience at oppression that yours does. We'll Inquisition your ass.
lol - since I mentioned it,
we got a second christian vote
Cramulus is guessing some people like being contrary
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 27, 2009, 07:17:00 PM
I think Paul did most of the PR work.
For himself.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 28, 2009, 08:03:26 AM
QuoteWe're gonna persecute the fuck out of you.
Not to sound cocky, but bring it. My religion has much more experience at oppression that yours does. We'll Inquisition your ass.
Um, yeah. You DO know that it is a high honor in Discordianism for one to bring down a Jihad on ourselves, right? Also, there's nothing funnier or more frustrating than trying to "put a discordian to the question". Because we love water. Yum, yum, yum.
Admittedly, I didn't know that. I've yet to get my hands on a copy of the Principia. I get the basic ideas, but do to money restrictions and various other pains in my ass, I've yet to read it. Most of my knowledge of Discordianism is from this website, the Illuminatus Trilogy, and my own inferences.
Thanks for lesson, then. And there's other methods than drowning. Ve haf vays of making you talk.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 28, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
Thanks for lesson, then. And there's other methods than drowning. Ve haf vays of making you talk.
But do you haff vays of makingk us shut up?
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 28, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
Admittedly, I didn't know that. I've yet to get my hands on a copy of the Principia. I get the basic ideas, but do to money restrictions and various other pains in my ass, I've yet to read it. Most of my knowledge of Discordianism is from this website, the Illuminatus Trilogy, and my own inferences.
Thanks for lesson, then. And there's other methods than drowning. Ve haf vays of making you talk.
Me too! Does anyone know where to find a copy of the Principia Discordia? I've been looking for ages but I can't seem to find it anywhere!The above is fail.
:facepalm:
Meme killed via clumsy application.
Joke over.
Apologies.
Quote from: null & void on June 28, 2009, 09:14:16 PM
Apologies.
Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the meme. After all, you killed it. Murdering swine.
But it's dead! Apologizing to a dead meme won't make it a live meme. Maybe a zombie meme, but I don't think anyone really wants that.
Do they?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 28, 2009, 06:54:05 PM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 28, 2009, 06:52:59 PM
Thanks for lesson, then. And there's other methods than drowning. Ve haf vays of making you talk.
But do you haff vays of makingk us shut up?
:lulz:
QuoteBut do you haff vays of makingk us shut up?
Chloroform and Duct Tape.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 28, 2009, 10:13:58 PM
QuoteBut do you haff vays of makingk us shut up?
Chloroform and Duct Tape.
Doesn't work on Rain Gods. We just talk through our arses.
Also, if Eldora is involved, she can speak with her genitals. No, really. She said so.
Duct tape doesn't work on anuses?
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 29, 2009, 01:20:29 AM
Duct tape doesn't work on anuses?
I have a funny answer for this, so if someone who isn't Enki would care to jump in...?
Please.
Worst duct tape use I've seen is as a makeshift jock strap.
QuoteDoesn't work on Rain Gods. We just talk through our arses.
You're a rain god? Must be uncomfortable.
Then all I need is a wooden stake and a hammer. Just knock you out, and place the stake in the appropriate orifice.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on June 29, 2009, 03:23:25 AM
QuoteDoesn't work on Rain Gods. We just talk through our arses.
You're a rain god? Must be uncomfortable.
Then all I need is a wooden stake and a hammer. Just knock you out, and place the stake in the appropriate orifice.
No stake, not even a telephone pole, can stop the emissions. All you'd wind up with is a high-velocity piece of wood that's gotta land somewhere.
This needs to be attempted and youtubed. :lulz:
Quote from: Requia on June 29, 2009, 03:46:54 AM
This needs to be attempted and youtubed. :lulz:
Okay. Someone come shove a telephone pole up my arse.
Be careful what you wish for.
What they never told you about the Large Hadron Collider: it was the latest in a series of attempts to get the Discordians to shut up.
And does anyone else remember what happened? Not only did it not succeed, the fucking thing BROKE.
ok, first off, I'm a pagan, a polytheist to be specific which is why I picked Eris as well as other deities. I'm specifically neopagan because I am not a reconstructionist trying to live some ancient pagan religion but instead I follow a fairly cobbled together faith that draws on ancient ones.
Now, given that I am sure a bunch of you already want to beat up the fluffy Wiccan, I'm really not, I generally don't enjoy Wiccan forums much, which is why i am on a discordian one instead, but I suppose my worldview is not all that different from theirs. If you look at the Wiccan spell cookbooks most of them do have the basic idea right, although I find it to be much more clearly explained in Peter Carroll's works on chaos magick. Why they choose to share all the spells they made up when they usually give you the basics on making your own I don't know. Maybe so you can learn by example, but their examples tend to be a big pain in the ass.
Magic does work, if you believe in it. The form is unimportant, as in any form will work, but the form is also very important because we tend to find it much easier to believe in something that is explained in a rigid way and we tend to have a much easier time getting into a magical headspace if we have set up rather rigid rules about how magic works.
Whether or not the deities are really really real is as irrelevant as whether or not the barstool is real. Treating them as real works better for me than treating them as not real as far as living my life goes. I get results from my theism and so, although I may be an agnostic deep down, I act as if the deities are real, which is, I think the important part of it all.
You may now commence with the witch burning.
not a polytheist, but a MEGAtheist which means I believe in MORE and BETTER gods than you!
Oh, I also believe in fairies, both in my garden and out in the woods. For pretty much the same reasons I believe in deities, and barstools.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 07:07:29 AMMagic does work, if you believe in it.
Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 29, 2009, 07:28:48 AM
not a polytheist, but a MEGAtheist which means I believe in MORE and BETTER gods than you!
I'm an AwesomeTheist. It doesn't matter how many gods I believe in, they're all cooler than the ones you do.
An IndieTheist is someone who worships gods so cool, you haven't even heard of them yet. And sniffs at you condescendingly when you admit that.
Wait... Cain worships ME?
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 07:07:29 AMMagic does work, if you believe in it.
Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.
No it doesn't. Technology works, science doesn't "work" even if you do believe in it. Technology meanwhile works under a pretty wide set of belief systems, but not under all of them, and under ones that contradict the intent of the technology (for instance, this computer is actually housing a demon, that makes it go, and if I interact with the demon it will eat my soul) it doesn't work. The set of belief systems under which magic works may be a bit more restricted than the ones for technology, but there's also the fact that, for me, a world with fairies, witches, wizards, gods, and goddesses in it is way more fun and exciting than one in which those are either delusions of mine or people who are deluded.
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 07:07:29 AMMagic does work, if you believe in it.
Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.
:potd:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 07:07:29 AMMagic does work, if you believe in it.
Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.
No it doesn't. Technology works, science doesn't "work" even if you do believe in it. Technology meanwhile works under a pretty wide set of belief systems, but not under all of them, and under ones that contradict the intent of the technology (for instance, this computer is actually housing a demon, that makes it go, and if I interact with the demon it will eat my soul) it doesn't work. The set of belief systems under which magic works may be a bit more restricted than the ones for technology, but there's also the fact that, for me, a world with fairies, witches, wizards, gods, and goddesses in it is way more fun and exciting than one in which those are either delusions of mine or people who are deluded.
Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume a singular definition of the work "work" in this case.
I'll even open a door for you, and mention that one of the goals of science is to explain the universe in objective terms, while one of the goals of magic is to explain the universe in subjective terms.
F=ma, whether you want it to or not.
The fact that angels pull things towards the ground faster and faster depending on the distance is up for debate.
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2009, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 29, 2009, 07:28:48 AM
not a polytheist, but a MEGAtheist which means I believe in MORE and BETTER gods than you!
I'm an AwesomeTheist. It doesn't matter how many gods I believe in, they're all cooler than the ones you do.
An IndieTheist is someone who worships gods so cool, you haven't even heard of them yet. And sniffs at you condescendingly when you admit that.
and I'm a Dunotheist. D/N/T. 8)
yeah, I'll agree with you that our experience of the universe is ultimately pretty subjective
but I have to draw the line at the notion that belief is the most powerful tool for shaping reality
it's a great tool, yeah,
and I will even agree with you that current scientific models are a Belief System, and that it's been muddled by Too Many Cooks, and one day it will be replaced by something better --
(I mean christ, we used to have Solid Proof that all things were composed of Four Elements... Maybe our grandchildren won't even believe in Atoms.)
-- but I don't think science is the same kind of system as magic. If you cast aside most belief systems, (christianity, animism, pastafarianism et al) you can still basically orient yourself onto reality. In order to disregard science you have to cast aside some pretty basic stuff about reality. Like that we can measure and observe it empirically.
I think it's useful to get out of that materialist headspace now and then -- but once you start living in a world where science is easily and regularly dismissed, you often start to sound like that guy who cannot understand the evidence about the earth being older than 5000 years old. Or the asshat at the party who, late at night, tries to tell everyone about his date with Isis. Or worse - since science (in most parts of the USA) informs consensus reality you start seeing everybody as barbarians, unable to hear the whispers of nature. Or whatever.
so ultimately, more power to ya
but watch out for that barstool :p
Well put.
Quote from: LMNO on June 29, 2009, 01:09:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 11:40:47 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 07:07:29 AMMagic does work, if you believe in it.
Thats interesting, since science works even if you don't believe in it.
No it doesn't. Technology works, science doesn't "work" even if you do believe in it. Technology meanwhile works under a pretty wide set of belief systems, but not under all of them, and under ones that contradict the intent of the technology (for instance, this computer is actually housing a demon, that makes it go, and if I interact with the demon it will eat my soul) it doesn't work. The set of belief systems under which magic works may be a bit more restricted than the ones for technology, but there's also the fact that, for me, a world with fairies, witches, wizards, gods, and goddesses in it is way more fun and exciting than one in which those are either delusions of mine or people who are deluded.
Look, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume a singular definition of the work "work" in this case.
I'll even open a door for you, and mention that one of the goals of science is to explain the universe in objective terms, while one of the goals of magic is to explain the universe in subjective terms.
F=ma, whether you want it to or not.
The fact that angels pull things towards the ground faster and faster depending on the distance is up for debate.
Science is a very useful explanation of the world. However that is all that it is. F=MA only works if it is useful to you for it to work. Accepting a precept like that as true can lead to all sorts of fun applications, however, if you don't approach it in the right mindset (the scientific method, as well as a certain rigourous approach to your technological development) it doesn't do you any more good than "God doesn't like it when you are a slut"
F=MA is a definition anyways, rather than a law of nature, it defines what force is. It's not equivalent to Angels pulling you toward the ground, it's more equivalent to "A Nephilim is a half angel half human"
I agree however about the subjective and objective plans as far as science and magic are concerned, and I greatly prefer a subjectively defined universe. Although I'll take advatnage of all the technology and scientific study that has been done.
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
:barstool:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you
won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Actually, I think scientific terms are the last thing anyone is going to think about after they've been clobbered by a bar stool.
It also wouldn't matter whether they believed you to be possessed by a demon or just a violent nerd when they respond by cold cocking you with a beer bottle.
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
It might, but you would be incapable of knowing it. So, instead, the blow would be mighty as if thrown by a thousand horny demons.
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Nope, it'll be equal to the totality of the chi which you have invested into barstool, multiplied by the wooden essence of the barstool itself.
Plus Enki and the guy with the squid vatar said what I meant better than I did.
Quote from: Iason Gayle on June 30, 2009, 12:53:42 AM
:barstool:
THIS.
Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.
Levitate me one barstool, then we can talk.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Quote from: Iason Gayle on June 30, 2009, 12:53:42 AM
:barstool:
THIS.
Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.
Who are you calling an adult?! :horrormirth:
Quote from: Risus on June 30, 2009, 03:31:31 AM
Levitate me one barstool, then we can talk.
only if he chooses to
believe you are talking
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Quote from: Iason Gayle on June 30, 2009, 12:53:42 AM
:barstool:
THIS.
Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.
why?
Also, the barstool doesn't argue against magic, I already said I believe in barstools, and the two people clobbered by one in the parable are using scientific discoveries to mentally wank each other into believing the barstool doesn't exist. A good example of science not working.
Whether you believe in fairies or not, santa claus or not, God or not, quantum physics or not, or whatever, the barstool to your head is going to hurt. The explanation as to exactly why it hurts the amount that it does, whether that has to do with force mass and acceleration, the chi flow in your nose, or magical pain aliens from the nth dimension is completely irrelevent in that particular instance.
If your beliefs are solid, and Gods, fairies, and magic aren't possibilities I think you are denying yourself all sorts of possibilities. Sure, I could choose to live in your world, where the experiences I have had are a product of mental derangement on my part, but it looks like way less fun than the world that I live in. If choosing to live in the world you are going to enjoy most isn't part of being Discordian then I suppose I must be badly misunderstanding it and am apparently doing it wrong.
I'm not saying that believing in a different paradigm solves all my problems, I have problems, but they tend to be ones that are in some way entertaining for me, and the solutions i find to them are also usually entertaining.
Take a wild guess. No, really.
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 04:41:53 AM
Take a wild guess. No, really.
Because it irritates Roger? I'm not playing dumb, maybe I really am being dumb, but I don't get the assumption that magic, fairies, etc are a bad thing as far as getting serious work accomplished goes.
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Nope, it'll be equal to the totality of the chi which you have invested into barstool, multiplied by the wooden essence of the barstool itself.
Plus Enki and the guy with the squid vatar said what I meant better than I did.
You changed the terms so that they sound more mahdjiqual. Whoop-dee fuckin' doo. All you accomplished was to make it unquantifiable, unless you want to invent a new metric for measuring chi and wooden essence.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
Also I have an experiment for you. Problem is, it being magic, it rather requires belief in magic.
Pick two results which are equally likely, but unrelated, both of which are things which will or will not be realized in one months time. Preferably two things that you do not have any control over, as that adds a whole shit ton of extra variables, also, preferably things which have a frequency of occurence between 2/3 and 3/4 of happening purely by chance.
Now, using whatever magical system you believe to be valid, work for one of those results to happen, don't work for the other.
Do this repeatedly over and over, so that you have a representative sample, now see if the one that you worked toward making happen happened more often.
I have not done this, it is a crapload of work to convince me of something that I have already accepted, IE magic works, but if you are interested in approaching it in a way that will get it into your head go ahead and try it.
To apply this specifically to gods, rather than doing a spell, pray for one result or another. give sacrifice, in whatever way that deity likes. This I have done often enough that I can say with some reliability that things are more likely to happen if I pray for them than not.
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 04:59:25 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Nope, it'll be equal to the totality of the chi which you have invested into barstool, multiplied by the wooden essence of the barstool itself.
Plus Enki and the guy with the squid vatar said what I meant better than I did.
You changed the terms so that they sound more mahdjiqual. Whoop-dee fuckin' doo. All you accomplished was to make it unquantifiable, unless you want to invent a new metric for measuring chi and wooden essence.
F=MA doesn't matter at all at that point. nor does the chi and wooden essence. what matters to me is how much my face hurts, which can't really be quantified in any objective way, and whether or not i have sustained any permanent injuries. All of this is pretty subjective and an approach based on my own beliefs is probably more useful to me at that point. You can't really prove, one way or another, what the force of the barstool is, as setting up measuring equipment for it would alter the dynamics, and make me much less likely to stand there and get hit. Also, if you approach it scientifically, making certain you are applying the right amount of acceleration, figuring the mass of the barstool, and thus achieving the proper force to break my nose, give me a concussion, or whatever, you are less likely to achieve a useful result (me broken, concussed, or what have you) than if you utter an invocation to the mighty Thor and swing with all your might.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
No. But it does mean yours are
stupid, if you value life and good health while disbelieving in the power of physical trauma.
Know what
Im getting fucking sick of people that bad mouth science so they can fantasize about magique and fairies and other bull shit
They are worse the creationists.
At least many of the creationists actually probably wouldn't mind going back to the dark ages if it means being closer to their bronze age super man
But these fuckers are worse then that. They actually use the comforts and technology that scientific knowledge has bestowed on them whenever it is in their convince, or when their magique pixie dust can not help them.
Hey you wanna live without science. Fine. Never go see a doctor or dentist again, toss out all your technology, especially digital media, burn all your books that doesn't have to do with dragons and elves, and go sit in the corner and play make believe.
Us grown ups will have discussions without you.
Moonbeam
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
Also I have an experiment for you. Problem is, it being magic, it rather requires belief in magic.
Pick two results which are equally likely, but unrelated, both of which are things which will or will not be realized in one months time. Preferably two things that you do not have any control over, as that adds a whole shit ton of extra variables, also, preferably things which have a frequency of occurence between 2/3 and 3/4 of happening purely by chance.
Now, using whatever magical system you believe to be valid, work for one of those results to happen, don't work for the other.
Do this repeatedly over and over, so that you have a representative sample, now see if the one that you worked toward making happen happened more often.
I have not done this, it is a crapload of work to convince me of something that I have already accepted, IE magic works, but if you are interested in approaching it in a way that will get it into your head go ahead and try it.
To apply this specifically to gods, rather than doing a spell, pray for one result or another. give sacrifice, in whatever way that deity likes. This I have done often enough that I can say with some reliability that things are more likely to happen if I pray for them than not.
Get results and get it published in a scientific paper... and peer reviewed...
cause if that is true then physics is wrong and you will a Nobel prize... and lot of monies
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 04:47:17 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 04:41:53 AM
Take a wild guess. No, really.
Because it irritates Roger? I'm not playing dumb, maybe I really am being dumb, but I don't get the assumption that magic, fairies, etc are a bad thing as far as getting serious work accomplished goes.
Keep trying.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:06:28 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 04:59:25 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 29, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
RE: Cram
I would say that science is the basis of consensus reality in our modern society, casting it aside entirely would be as foolish as completely casting aside Catholicism in the middle ages. dismissing it is never going to be easy, and shouldn't be done regularly, but it can still be very useful, on occasion. Plus a date with Isis would be awesome.
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
Nope, it'll be equal to the totality of the chi which you have invested into barstool, multiplied by the wooden essence of the barstool itself.
Plus Enki and the guy with the squid vatar said what I meant better than I did.
You changed the terms so that they sound more mahdjiqual. Whoop-dee fuckin' doo. All you accomplished was to make it unquantifiable, unless you want to invent a new metric for measuring chi and wooden essence.
F=MA doesn't matter at all at that point. nor does the chi and wooden essence. what matters to me is how much my face hurts, which can't really be quantified in any objective way, and whether or not i have sustained any permanent injuries. All of this is pretty subjective and an approach based on my own beliefs is probably more useful to me at that point. You can't really prove, one way or another, what the force of the barstool is, as setting up measuring equipment for it would alter the dynamics, and make me much less likely to stand there and get hit. Also, if you approach it scientifically, making certain you are applying the right amount of acceleration, figuring the mass of the barstool, and thus achieving the proper force to break my nose, give me a concussion, or whatever, you are less likely to achieve a useful result (me broken, concussed, or what have you) than if you utter an invocation to the mighty Thor and swing with all your might.
If I swing a heavier barstool at the same acceleration, or shout said incantation to Thor so that I'm psyched up and swing it with greater acceleration, the force increases. I might not be thinking about it that way, but it's still true.
Whether or not people think or act in scientific terms doesn't have any bearing on the validity of science as a tool for learning about objective reality. It will never be perfect because people are not perfect, same as everything else.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
Yes it does
What is the nature of the universe other then rules that govern it
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
No. But it does mean yours are stupid, if you value life and good health while disbelieving in the power of physical trauma.
I never said I didn't believe in the power of physical trauma. And, in RE to your other post, now you are just rephrasing the concept when you say that shouting that invocation to Thor is nothing but psyching yourself up. If you really believe that Thor is aiding you, making you stronger and allowing you to hit me harder you are going to hit me harder than if you think of it only as psyching yourself up. In that case Atheism is hampering you from achieving the best possible result. Whether that is based on the nature of belief and the human psyche or based on the divine powers of Thor is completely irrelevent. Believing in Thor makes you hit harder. Science (the philosophy which says Thor doesn't exist, and the barstool is made of mostly empty space) fails in both counts when it comes to getting in a fight with barstools.
RE Thurnez I also didn't say I don't believe in science. Science and Atheism are not the same thing. Science is useful, so I use it, magic is useful, so I use it. Why deny yourself tools? I am not pushing a magic vs technology dualism, I am in favor of both. Science is not always the best tool for all situations however.
Also, barstools and knives are things that hurt and kill doesn't say anything about the rules that govern the universe, they offer useful guides as far as behavior concerning weapons, but none of that has anything to do with how the universe really truly works.
1) your not arguing theism here.. your arguing magique and by doing that your saying you can influence reality in some manner.. which, like creationism is a scientific hypothesis making statement on how the world operates... all this without evidence... and Im calling it bullshit
2) you made several states in that science does work.. well guess what... the results are reproducible.. meaning it does
both have NOTHING to do with tools
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:19:54 AM
Also, barstools and knives are things that hurt and kill doesn't say anything about the rules that govern the universe, they offer useful guides as far as behavior concerning weapons, but none of that has anything to do with how the universe really truly works.
YES THEY DO
how many times do i have say this
The fact you can feel pain from being hit with bar stole is a small part of HOW THE UNIVERSE OPERATES
Science versus magic is a false dichotomy. Magic is part of science, for certain definitions of magic and science. We have had this discussion before, and getting hung up on the wording isn't helping anyone.
Wank all you want. I'm done with this subject, until people start arguing over the semantics rather than the terminology.
Its not semantics or terminology.. if you have a claim on how the universe operates back it up with EVIDENCE, not just what you want to believe, or personal mumbo jumbo
What does barstools hurting have to do with the existence or non existence of gods? or with magic?
Barstool hurt, that's a simple observation that we can generally all agree on.
When I cast magic spells, the things I cast them for are more likely to happen. This is an observation that I have made and that works for me. Might not work for you, I don't really care, but you seem to care about the fact that i believe it.
I don't see how the two have any relation to one another.
Another observation I have made is that if I act as if deities exist, and pray to them and propitiate them I can get results that I want. Might not work for you, considering your attitude I doubt they'd like you all that well and I wouldn't really reccomend a theistic approach. I am still not sure what this has to do with barstools.
On your previous post
1) Bullshit, very good, you are starting to get it, maybe. Except for your insistence that I have no evidence. I have positive results, that is all I need. If you want positive results I outlined an experiment you could do. You're a smart guy, I am sure you could come up with one that is more suited to your own approach to the world.
2) this one confuses me, I said science works, you said science works, then your cited reproducability as evidence science works. Yes, science works, it doesn't require subscribing to the basic philosophical belief system of materialistic atheism to take advantage of it, and subscribing to that belief system would, in my opinion, prevent me from taking advantage of other things, which also work.
And, in response to the latest one. Why? Who cares how the universe really truly works? What matters to me is what I can get it to do for me.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:39:52 AM
Who cares how the universe really truly works?
everyone
thats why we made up all this bullshit. The problem is that when we started to actually figure out stuff it turned to be really hard and nothing like the bullshit that gave us comfort.
Also stop saying science is atheist ... it is not
A lot of theism is outside of science
your magique is NOT
cause it states it can effect the natural world in some way
and if you know its not true, but still use it cause it works for you, its STILL NOT TRUE
i am not following the pro majique argument here, you are saying that if you invoke Thor you can effect the universe and the physical outcome (swinging the bar stool harder) will change is this right?
if so the same could be said to work in the reverse correct? if i make a bar-stool swinging machine that swings it exactly the same speed each time and you put your head under it and invoke Thor (or whatever majique that is appropriate) it will hurt you less when it hits, and by extension if you do it (your magique ) just right it may not hurt at all?? is this what you are claiming?
if it is i can almost guarantee a number of discordians willing to make the bar-stool swinging machine to help you test the theory..
also how do you know your observations of magique working isn't law of fives??
and before you write crap about me not believing you or something (which I don't)
YOUR the one making the claim
heres what you do
Tell me what you could do to what degree of accuracy, then perform a double blind test experiment and then analyze the results
Thats how you make your claim respectable... until then it's just bullshit
EDIT: what formenter said
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 05:49:15 AM
and before you write crap about me not believing you or something (which I don't)
YOUR the one making the claim
heres what you do
Tell me what you could do to what degree of accuracy, then perform a double blind test experiment and then analyze the results
Thats how you make your claim respectable... until then it's just bullshit
EDIT: what formenter said
I'm not trying to convince you to believe in magic, however you are trying to convince me not to. I don't care if you use this tool that works for me or not. I use it, and it works. Also, I see no reason that me saying I did a double blind experiment and test results showed me that magic exists is going to be any more believable to you than me saying I use it in my day to day life and it is a useful tool. Personally I'd be less likely to believe the claim of a double blind experiment as it is a bunch of work, and not at all the usual approach applied by magicians.
and as to the other post, if I didn't believe it was true it wouldn't work for me. I think you are using everyone when mosbunall would be more appropriate.
I don't know who the god of masochistic fools is, but that's about the only one I can think of who would be of assistance with that barstool swinging machine experiment of fomenters. I am not claiming magic can make me immune to barstools, I said it can make a difference in things I cannot effect in any other way. If you start applying it to things you can effect in other ways it is far more effective if you physically work to make things happen than if you work against them happening. The spell or invocation is going to be more effective if I get out of the way of the barstool swinging machine. Of course that invalidates the scientific approach to the whole experiment, but that is a big part of why magic is difficult to approach in a scientific manner.
MAGIC WORKS!... just not... ahhh... when... tested
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:59:54 AM
I don't know who the god of masochistic fools is, but that's about the only one I can think of who would be of assistance with that barstool swinging machine experiment of fomenters. I am not claiming magic can make me immune to barstools, I said it can make a difference in things I cannot effect in any other way.
the existence of a scientifically testable helmet means the magique has been nullified and wont work any more, but in a world w/o helmets it would work?
Quote
If you start applying it to things you can effect in other ways it is far more effective if you physically work to make things happen than if you work against them happening. The spell or invocation is going to be more effective if I get out of the way of the bar stool swinging machine. Of course that invalidates the scientific approach to the whole experiment, but that is a big part of why magic is difficult to approach in a scientific manner.
so if you are standing under the machine and it moves to fast for you to get out of the way and you do a invocation to manifest a helmet to protect your head the discordians performing the experiment would be more likely to show mercy and give you one to wear? we can test this ...
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 01:01:37 AM
Wait...
So if I clobber you with a barstool after you've immanentized the eschaton and gotten rid of science as a dominant creator of consensus reality, the force with which it hits you won't equal the mass of the barstool times the acceleration with which I propel it towards your face?
:kingmeh:
I would be utterly amazed if it did, given that f=ma has nothing to do with the force of the barstool on the magic believer, but rather your force on the barstool.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
Also I have an experiment for you. Problem is, it being magic, it rather requires belief in magic.
Pick two results which are equally likely, but unrelated, both of which are things which will or will not be realized in one months time. Preferably two things that you do not have any control over, as that adds a whole shit ton of extra variables, also, preferably things which have a frequency of occurence between 2/3 and 3/4 of happening purely by chance.
Now, using whatever magical system you believe to be valid, work for one of those results to happen, don't work for the other.
Do this repeatedly over and over, so that you have a representative sample, now see if the one that you worked toward making happen happened more often.
I have not done this, it is a crapload of work to convince me of something that I have already accepted, IE magic works, but if you are interested in approaching it in a way that will get it into your head go ahead and try it.
To apply this specifically to gods, rather than doing a spell, pray for one result or another. give sacrifice, in whatever way that deity likes. This I have done often enough that I can say with some reliability that things are more likely to happen if I pray for them than not.
Funny, a lot of us have, its called the quarters experiment.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:19:54 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
No. But it does mean yours are stupid, if you value life and good health while disbelieving in the power of physical trauma.
I never said I didn't believe in the power of physical trauma.
Not the point.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:19:54 AM
Quote from: Cainad on June 30, 2009, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
No. But it does mean yours are stupid, if you value life and good health while disbelieving in the power of physical trauma.
And, in RE to your other post, now you are just rephrasing the concept when you say that shouting that invocation to Thor is nothing but psyching yourself up. If you really believe that Thor is aiding you, making you stronger and allowing you to hit me harder you are going to hit me harder than if you think of it only as psyching yourself up. In that case Atheism is hampering you from achieving the best possible result. Whether that is based on the nature of belief and the human psyche or based on the divine powers of Thor is completely irrelevent. Believing in Thor makes you hit harder. Science (the philosophy which says Thor doesn't exist, and the barstool is made of mostly empty space) fails in both counts when it comes to getting in a fight with barstools.
Says you. See, I don't believe this is true, and therefore it is not a part of my physical reality, and you are utterly incapable of convincing me otherwise.
LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEEEEEAAAAAR YOOOOOOUUU!
But honestly, I've pretty much been yanking your chain. I know the importance of being able to radically change perspectives for what subjectively seems to be a superior result. I don't think dissing science needs to be a part of that AT ALL, because it makes one look like a fucking idiot. It's even dumber to try and pass off the altered perspectives as "real" just because our experience of the world is ultimately subjective. If something seems to work for you then unless you have something like, I dunno, SCIENCE to back it up (i.e. demonstrate that it happened in an objective sense that other people can see for themselves) then the only people who are going to believe you are chumps. Of course, there's plenty of chumps out there, so have fun.
Quote from: Requia on June 30, 2009, 08:07:50 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 05:02:10 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 30, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Listen if I come over to your house and butcher you with a knife... your still dead whether or not you believe in the knife, or ability to butcher you... end of story
The universe is governed by specific principles and whether you want to believe in them or not doesn't have any effect on the validity of these principles... and unless you could come up with an experiment to prove that wrong...
get over it...
Same arguement as the barstool. Application of material force doesn't mean that my beliefs are wrong, or that yours are right. Not that mine are right and your are wrong either, just that mine are more useful to me at the moment than any other set I could be using. I didn't say that I don't believe that a knife thrust to the sternum will kill me, or that a barstool to the head will hurt and probably cause a concussion. However neither of those experiements says anything about the underlying nature of the universe. All they say is get out of the way of barstools and knives.
Also I have an experiment for you. Problem is, it being magic, it rather requires belief in magic.
Pick two results which are equally likely, but unrelated, both of which are things which will or will not be realized in one months time. Preferably two things that you do not have any control over, as that adds a whole shit ton of extra variables, also, preferably things which have a frequency of occurence between 2/3 and 3/4 of happening purely by chance.
Now, using whatever magical system you believe to be valid, work for one of those results to happen, don't work for the other.
Do this repeatedly over and over, so that you have a representative sample, now see if the one that you worked toward making happen happened more often.
I have not done this, it is a crapload of work to convince me of something that I have already accepted, IE magic works, but if you are interested in approaching it in a way that will get it into your head go ahead and try it.
To apply this specifically to gods, rather than doing a spell, pray for one result or another. give sacrifice, in whatever way that deity likes. This I have done often enough that I can say with some reliability that things are more likely to happen if I pray for them than not.
Funny, a lot of us have, its called the quarters experiment.
Which is to say, an example of the Law of Fives in action. The problem is, the above experiment does not carry through the entire process; it is stopped when the
a priori conclusion is reached.
...Also, did I actually read the phrase, "the chi flow in your nose"?
Quote from: LMNO on June 30, 2009, 12:43:06 PM
...Also, did I actually read the phrase, "the chi flow in your nose"?
You're supposed to say
gesundheit.
Quote from: LMNO on June 30, 2009, 12:43:06 PM
...Also, did I actually read the phrase, "the chi flow in your nose"?
You did. If that isn't clear enough evidence that I am not taking myself too seriously I don't know what is.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 04:26:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Quote from: Iason Gayle on June 30, 2009, 12:53:42 AM
:barstool:
THIS.
Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.
why?
Also, the barstool doesn't argue against magic, I already said I believe in barstools, and the two people clobbered by one in the parable are using scientific discoveries to mentally wank each other into believing the barstool doesn't exist. A good example of science not working.
Whether you believe in fairies or not, santa claus or not, God or not, quantum physics or not, or whatever, the barstool to your head is going to hurt. The explanation as to exactly why it hurts the amount that it does, whether that has to do with force mass and acceleration, the chi flow in your nose, or magical pain aliens from the nth dimension is completely irrelevent in that particular instance.
If your beliefs are solid, and Gods, fairies, and magic aren't possibilities I think you are denying yourself all sorts of possibilities. Sure, I could choose to live in your world, where the experiences I have had are a product of mental derangement on my part, but it looks like way less fun than the world that I live in. If choosing to live in the world you are going to enjoy most isn't part of being Discordian then I suppose I must be badly misunderstanding it and am apparently doing it wrong.
I'm not saying that believing in a different paradigm solves all my problems, I have problems, but they tend to be ones that are in some way entertaining for me, and the solutions i find to them are also usually entertaining.
Okay, BH just went on the "don't bother reading" list. I could get this sort of crap from Scientology.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 01, 2009, 03:45:20 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 30, 2009, 04:26:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 30, 2009, 03:29:49 AM
Quote from: Iason Gayle on June 30, 2009, 12:53:42 AM
:barstool:
THIS.
Discordianism would be a lot more useful if we didn't keep attracting adults that believe in magic and fairies and shit.
why?
Also, the barstool doesn't argue against magic, I already said I believe in barstools, and the two people clobbered by one in the parable are using scientific discoveries to mentally wank each other into believing the barstool doesn't exist. A good example of science not working.
Whether you believe in fairies or not, santa claus or not, God or not, quantum physics or not, or whatever, the barstool to your head is going to hurt. The explanation as to exactly why it hurts the amount that it does, whether that has to do with force mass and acceleration, the chi flow in your nose, or magical pain aliens from the nth dimension is completely irrelevent in that particular instance.
If your beliefs are solid, and Gods, fairies, and magic aren't possibilities I think you are denying yourself all sorts of possibilities. Sure, I could choose to live in your world, where the experiences I have had are a product of mental derangement on my part, but it looks like way less fun than the world that I live in. If choosing to live in the world you are going to enjoy most isn't part of being Discordian then I suppose I must be badly misunderstanding it and am apparently doing it wrong.
I'm not saying that believing in a different paradigm solves all my problems, I have problems, but they tend to be ones that are in some way entertaining for me, and the solutions i find to them are also usually entertaining.
Okay, BH just went on the "don't bother reading" list. I could get this sort of crap from Scientology.
Probably, but this way you get it for free.
:argh!:
Never give a sword to a man who can't dance. Never give a wand to a man that can't deal with reality. - Peter Carroll
I think this is getting a little out of hand. BH is not trying to reject all science. I think he's (she's?) stating that some beliefs are more useful at different times than others. I don't have any issue with that.
I think some people are forgetting that science is not how the universe works. It is a model of how the universe works. You can cast aside that model and still live in a universe where things fall at a constant rate or whatever. You just don't describe the rate of falling using the same language. That doesn't make you wrong.
Also, I think the Barstool metaphor is being used incorrectly. The lesson of that story is, "Just because you believe in crazy shit, it doesn't change how the universe fundamentally operates."
Intelligent people who practice madgliguqte understand this. They know that they are monkeying around in their head to alter how they interface with the universe. Most occultists know that they can't shoot lightning bolts - reminding them that the universe has a rather unyielding material nature isn't an argument against the majority of occult practices.
The Barstool metaphor (to me) is an argument against belief systems which poorly describe reality -- like the Breatharians who think they can get all their daily nutrients from proper breathing techniques. A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world. As opposed to the guy in the barstool story who thinks the universe is intangible, and finds out he's 100% dead wrong.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world.
Technically speaking, they are, it just happens to be harmless, limited and socially acceptable.
Also, rolling golden apples ftw
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
I think this is getting a little out of hand. BH is not trying to reject all science. I think he's (she's?) stating that some beliefs are more useful at different times than others. I don't have any issue with that.
I think some people are forgetting that science is not how the universe works. It is a model of how the universe works. You can cast aside that model and still live in a universe where things fall at a constant rate or whatever. You just don't describe the rate of falling using the same language. That doesn't make you wrong.
Also, I think the Barstool metaphor is being used incorrectly. The lesson of that story is, "Just because you believe in crazy shit, it doesn't change how the universe fundamentally operates."
Intelligent people who practice madgliguqte understand this. They know that they are monkeying around in their head to alter how they interface with the universe. Most occultists know that they can't shoot lightning bolts - reminding them that the universe has a rather unyielding material nature isn't an argument against the majority of occult practices.
The Barstool metaphor (to me) is an argument against belief systems which poorly describe reality -- like the Breatharians who think they can get all their daily nutrients from proper breathing techniques. A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world. As opposed to the guy in the barstool story who thinks the universe is intangible, and finds out he's 100% dead wrong.
:mittens:
I find there are people in the occult that believe in crazy shit. Generally speaking though, they appear to have little to show for their actions. I find there are also rational, intelligent people in the occult world that make use of crazy shit, but don't believe in it... often they seem to have a lot going on and are somewhat in control of their lives. Then I find there are a lot of people that just hear some of the crazies and think they can pontificate on the subject. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on July 01, 2009, 05:04:29 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world.
Technically speaking, they are, it just happens to be harmless, limited and socially acceptable.
to be fair then, they're only living in a partial fantasy world, and I have yet to meet a live human being which isn't.
I am reacting against the vibe ITT that anything but a dogmatic adherence to scientific materialism is braindead fairy-wank. All people mix and match their belief systems. Most people interface with reality just fine even if they have a few weird beliefs.
For example I talk to my cat all the time. I pretend she can understand me but just ignores me. Yes, that is magical thinking. But it keeps me company.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 05:11:26 PMI find there are people in the occult that believe in crazy shit. Generally speaking though, they appear to have little to show for their actions. I find there are also rational, intelligent people in the occult world that make use of crazy shit, but don't believe in it... often they seem to have a lot going on and are somewhat in control of their lives.
how do they make use of it (while not believing in it)?
I mean, I suppose you aren't just talking about selling rocks at high profit to the crazies.
To clarify my position, I don't adhere to scientific materialism or logical positivism or whatever. I just like talking shit with people who think the confirmation bias is an example of something really working for realz.
Cram: Technically, if you like talking to your cat even though you know she can't understand you, that's not magical thinking. That's playing pretend. You are still admitting you exist in a universe of scientific materialism. Magical thinking would be believing that your cat understands what you are saying, and responds.
Similarly, someone who uses magic as psychological tools to change their perceptions and somatic responses also are living in a scientifically materialistic universe, with an understanding of neurochemistry and psychology. It's the fuckers who channel Moon Energy and talks to Dragons you have to watch out for.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 01, 2009, 05:23:39 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 05:11:26 PMI find there are people in the occult that believe in crazy shit. Generally speaking though, they appear to have little to show for their actions. I find there are also rational, intelligent people in the occult world that make use of crazy shit, but don't believe in it... often they seem to have a lot going on and are somewhat in control of their lives.
how do they make use of it (while not believing in it)?
Just because something is useful, doesn't mean its true. Crowley stated several times that he held no absolute belief in anything he did. Rather he felt the only possibly honest position was Spencerian agnosticism. IE, "we can't know, we don't know, we never will know... but by god some of this 'magic' stuff is pretty damned useful."
It seems to me that some people think the 'honest' view is a stark IS/IS NOT dichotemy between this view or that view. Personally, I find that any view, if its useful... is useful. Science is useful, I go to the doctor when I'm sick. Magic is useful, I've had some very successful experiences which have positively affected my life. To claim that one is true and one is false seems stupid. Both are useful, both are models based on observations. Both use symbols and semantics to try to communicate ideas. Both can be easily misunderstood by those that don't bother to grok the symbols and semantics of that specific model.
Belief doesn't enter into it.
in answer to LMNO and Zip:
one's beliefs aren't set in stone. I can talk to my cat and believe she understands me, and in this post explain it from another perspective.
peter carroll talks about how good magicians are able to move fluidly between different models.
Like there's energy model, where all magic is basically manipulating energy
the spiritual model, where all magic is basically dealing with spirits
or the psychological model, where all magic is basically a headgame you're playing with yourself
you can embrace one model today, then another one tomorrow. Bring the right tool for the right job.
you can drop the psychological model now and then without becoming a total moonbat.
Like in times of mourning, it's more comfortable to live in a spiritual universe than a materialist universe for a while. I hold that this is how people operate normally, but it gets confused when we discuss our beliefs in this sort of rigid Aristotelian fashion.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:44:46 PM
in answer to LMNO and Zip:
one's beliefs aren't set in stone. I can talk to my cat and believe she understands me, and in this post explain it from another perspective.
peter carroll talks about how good magicians are able to move fluidly between different models.
Like there's energy model, where all magic is basically manipulating energy
the spiritual model, where all magic is basically dealing with spirits
or the psychological model, where all magic is basically a headgame you're playing with yourself
you can embrace one model today, then another one tomorrow. Bring the right tool for the right job.
you can drop the psychological model now and then without becoming a total moonbat.
Like in times of mourning, it's more comfortable to live in a spiritual universe than a materialist universe for a while. I hold that this is how people operate normally, but it gets confused when we discuss our beliefs in this sort of rigid Aristotelian fashion.
:potd:
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
I think this is getting a little out of hand. BH is not trying to reject all science. I think he's (she's?) stating that some beliefs are more useful at different times than others. I don't have any issue with that.
I think some people are forgetting that science is not how the universe works. It is a model of how the universe works. You can cast aside that model and still live in a universe where things fall at a constant rate or whatever. You just don't describe the rate of falling using the same language. That doesn't make you wrong.
Also, I think the Barstool metaphor is being used incorrectly. The lesson of that story is, "Just because you believe in crazy shit, it doesn't change how the universe fundamentally operates."
Intelligent people who practice madgliguqte understand this. They know that they are monkeying around in their head to alter how they interface with the universe. Most occultists know that they can't shoot lightning bolts - reminding them that the universe has a rather unyielding material nature isn't an argument against the majority of occult practices.
The Barstool metaphor (to me) is an argument against belief systems which poorly describe reality -- like the Breatharians who think they can get all their daily nutrients from proper breathing techniques. A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world. As opposed to the guy in the barstool story who thinks the universe is intangible, and finds out he's 100% dead wrong.
i don't think we are rejecting the view of science being a model or magic as a useful device for self transformation i thought we were having a little fun at this guys expense because of his mixing things up an using the term
real to describe magic and
it works to describe a law of 5s observation..
But aren't you actually embracing a higher-order understanding of universe?
Sure, switching models to accomodate the shit that gets thrown at you is a useful skill, and is one of the main points of a lot of the RAW non-fiction.
But in order to switch models swiftly and effectively, you have to realize that they are models within a universe that allows model-switching. If you believe you exist in a universe that allows you to believe that the One True God is YHWH on Monday, and believe the One True God is Posidon on Wednesday, then you pretty much have to accept that you actually live in a universe of a completely different nature than either of the ones you believe in.
If you allow a visual:
(http://www.gliffy.com/pubdoc/1752720/L.jpg)
That is to say, when you "step back" to explain and understand the model you were using, you need to explain it from a Scientific Materialist Universe.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
Intelligent people who practice madgliguqte understand this. They know that they are monkeying around in their head to alter how they interface with the universe. Most occultists know that they can't shoot lightning bolts - reminding them that the universe has a rather unyielding material nature isn't an argument against the majority of occult practices.
The Barstool metaphor (to me) is an argument against belief systems which poorly describe reality -- like the Breatharians who think they can get all their daily nutrients from proper breathing techniques. A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world. As opposed to the guy in the barstool story who thinks the universe is intangible, and finds out he's 100% dead wrong.
There's a difference between crazy quirky superstitions, if there is acknowledgment that in reality your probably not effecting the physical world and believing you are effecting physical world. IE I still do the wishing well but don't believe it.
Now if rituals that were once influenced by magical rituals are used to effect the temporal lobe as a sort of less destructive way of gaining a spiritual experience then, lets say, drugs then that's all well and fine.
But the
word magic implies that a supernatural energy is used to effect the natural world... those you are making a naturalistic claim on how the universe is scientifically structured... thus you have to prove your case
You most certianly do not need to explain it from a Scientific Materialist paradigm... that's no less a single model than believing in Transcendental or Magical paradigms. To crib from RAW: "The only thing I believe in that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand."
That (in some form or other) the only base level you need to be able to work from.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 05:01:05 PM
I think this is getting a little out of hand. BH is not trying to reject all science. I think he's (she's?) stating that some beliefs are more useful at different times than others. I don't have any issue with that.
I think some people are forgetting that science is not how the universe works. It is a model of how the universe works. You can cast aside that model and still live in a universe where things fall at a constant rate or whatever. You just don't describe the rate of falling using the same language. That doesn't make you wrong.
Also, I think the Barstool metaphor is being used incorrectly. The lesson of that story is, "Just because you believe in crazy shit, it doesn't change how the universe fundamentally operates."
Intelligent people who practice madgliguqte understand this. They know that they are monkeying around in their head to alter how they interface with the universe. Most occultists know that they can't shoot lightning bolts - reminding them that the universe has a rather unyielding material nature isn't an argument against the majority of occult practices.
The Barstool metaphor (to me) is an argument against belief systems which poorly describe reality -- like the Breatharians who think they can get all their daily nutrients from proper breathing techniques. A rational person who prays, tosses a penny into a wishing well, or carries a magical fetish to make him more attractive is not living in a total fantasy world. As opposed to the guy in the barstool story who thinks the universe is intangible, and finds out he's 100% dead wrong.
He, although admittedly I do have a girl's name. And that is what I am stating, some beliefs are more useful at certain times than others. With fun as a subset of useful. I also gave out the beliefs that I subscribe to the most often, which have to do with magic, and deities, and fairies, and are completely irrelevent to science.
I can tell that most of you are having fun with me. I'm having fun too, except about my percieved reaction from two people, it looked to me like Thurnez Iza was actually a bit upset about me believing the way I do, and Rev. Roger has written me off as a fruitcake. I did say that at the very root of things I don't think you can really know. That includes really knowing if the scientific description is really really true though. I figure if you can't really know you choose which belief structure to apply and act as if it is true and I went with a magical belief structure for my day to day existence. I do think my cat understands me, so long as I realize that means she understands me on cat terms (Daddy's angry, Daddy is sad, Daddy is willing to play with me, Daddy doesn't realize I am telling him my food bowl is empty and I need to show him etc) rather than on human terms I don't think that makes me a fruitbat.
When I use the word real to describe magic I am using it the same way you are using real to describe the scientific model. Both are useful tools for understanding the universe, and we can't really know if either is really really true at a deep level.
And if the law of fives doesn't work for you, I'd suggest playing with it a little more. Numerology can be useful, and the law of fives is kind of like a cheatcode for numerology.
Thurnez, you not believing you effect the physical world is why you don't effect the physical world.
LMNO yup, but Universe Prime strikes me as unknowable. And thinking about it too much makes model shifting more difficult.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:14:02 PM
To crib from RAW: "The only thing I believe in that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand."
I agree with statement
We probably only understand 10 percent of the universe... if that
But there is a different in understanding that we don't understand... and filling the in the gaps...
Now if as I said it is personal experience or even philosophy... that is different then that is different from... as I said.. fulling in the just filling in the gaps with ideas and not evidence
BabylonHoruv Ive written you off as a fruitcake too...
I haven't written Rat off cause I do believe every time me and rat tango we get caught up on semantics
personally i think me and rat are very close in agreement, but its a sort yin and yang thing
LMNO: you make a very interesting point. Answering for myself -- when I "step back" to explain the meta-model idea, I have to pick a model to explain it from. Scientific materialism is usually the default because it's effective for making stuff make sense to the average person. I also operate in scientific materialism most of the time so it feels comfortable as a default. But I don't think the meta-model understanding of the universe necessarily points to scientific materialism.
the "universe prime" in your model is the universe outside of our interpretation of it. I can't say anything definitively about that universe except that it hurts to get hit in the face with a barstool no matter which way you describe what happened.
While we're on belief systems....
I'm going to go out on a limb and add some more ointment to the stew,
the pet belief system I'm trying on this year is the one pushed in the Art of Memetics, where we're basically just a point of consciousness suspended in these nested egregores. And we ourselves are not a singular person, but a nested multiplicity of ideas and identities.
So at a very fine level you have cells. If you zoom in to see just cells, they look like like individual entities.
-zoom out and you see tissue
--zoom out and you see a person
---zoom out and you see a group of people
----zoom out and you see a business, religion, nation...
there's intelligence at all levels. This is fractal logic. Your body has circulatory, nervous, and immune systems. Your country has them too. We're all parts of the same giant entity.
(I'm being a bit too literal though... I should be talking about memes as the smallest unit, not cells)
AoM talks about how overall changes in the whole system happen as a result of microscopic internal events. The way that an influential individual can change an entire business' policy is the same process as how an influential memes can change a human's overall attitude.
MAGIC, as Ed and Wes pragmatically describe it, is nothing more than fine tuning the signals you are broadcasting and receiving within the egregore. It is literally a signal detection experiment. There's no hocus pocus about it, and the "magic" is almost indistinguishable from merely being effective at what you're doing. They don't even use the word magic because it has so much baggage and bad connotation.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:18:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:14:02 PM
To crib from RAW: "The only thing I believe in that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand."
I agree with statement
We probably only understand 10 percent of the universe... if that
But there is a different in understanding that we don't understand... and filling the in the gaps...
Now if as I said it is personal experience or even philosophy... that is different then that is different from... as I said.. fulling in the just filling in the gaps with ideas and not evidence
I have no idea if we understand the universe at all... I think we have very good documentation of observations made by humans about the perceived Universe... but there may be a billion reasons why our observations are terribly flawed. Humans once believed the Earth to be flat and the sun and moon to go spinning around us. The Earth and Sun and Moon and pretty much the biggest things we humans can see... and we only got that right after thousands of years of observing and documenting what we observed.
Yet, new theories postulate that the earth may not be round and go round the sun... instead we might all be 2D and only see 3d because we're projected holographs. Maybe that theory is bull shit, maybe its right, maybe its just another model trying to explain some observations...
There are so many reasons why our 'understanding' of even 10% of the Universe may be horribly flawed.
Hell, look at Causality, Cause and Effect. That doesn't really exist any more so than 5's and 23's. There are many, many actions and most of cause some sort of effect... but those effects are actions which cause other effects and the action that first caused this.... was the effect of many other actions. At best, we can presume that the linear order we process data in is correct, but even that must rely on our human brain and what it can grok based on our current understanding of things. IF we say "What was The Cause?", we're really saying "Go find me some Starbucks pebbles, so I'll feel like I have some control over my life". :wink:
Rather than a universe of Cause and Effect, it may be a universe of causal feedback, where causes create effects which interact with the Universe creating more effects which do the same over and over again. If this is the case, our assumptions about many things may be wrong.
Scientific materialism is really useful for modeling some things. However, to think it is the Base from which we must work, seems as silly as actually believing in faeries.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:20:58 PM
BabylonHoruv Ive written you off as a fruitcake too...
I haven't written Rat off cause I do believe every time me and rat tango we get caught up on semantics
personally i think me and rat are very close in agreement, but its a sort yin and yang thing
That's ok. I've written you off as a fundamentalist.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2564638/The-Art-Of-Memetics
here's some text I liked from the intro to AoM:
[This] is a book that is much needed in the occult community because it shows other magicians how to take memetics, semiotics, writing, and other related pursuits and adapt them to magical practices, while also pushing those magical practices into new directions. Magic is no longer restricted to ceremonial tools and garb. Magic is something more. Magic, in this book, is about taking the cultural forces around us and using them to shape reality.
That's pretty powerful. In fact, it's a recognition that if magic is to continue to evolve; it has to evolve with the technology of the time, while also using that technology in ways that most people will probably never think of. The magician is a person who fits into any time, any space, and does so by choosing to take on the available tools and cultural mindsets and use them to achieve what s/he desires.
...
Magic is perhaps the most loaded term we use throughout the text, and we propose the same definition Taylor Ellwood puts forth in his book Multi-Media Magic: "Magic involves making the improbable possible. It's learning how even the slightest change you make can have a radical effect on the internal system of your psychology/spirituality, and the external system of the environment and universe you live in."
...
Magic was once a much larger field of study. Over the years most of the ideas that were once confined to magical theory and practice have been isolated and reformulated in different fields of study. Magicians are left guarding only a few nuggets of practical application that remains unique to magic. For the most part, interaction with essences generated from patterns, the manipulation of belief to alter subjective experiences, and non-local action of thought and will are all that remain solely under the banner of 'Magick' and even these few ideations are being carted away into other disciplines. So why not just study those other disciplines?
We feel there is still value in the study of magic; in particular the language system that has been built up dealing with subtle connections, forces, and objects of the psyche. We believe that with grounding in the theory and experience of causing the improbable to become possible, an individual becomes empowered to reverse-engineer the hyperreal world of post-modern discourse. We believe that magic is much more than sleight of hand or sleight of mind, and know that what has been carted away into the sciences of harmonics, of chemistry, of quantum physics still haunts the spectral core of this abstraction labeled sorcery, magic, thaumaturgy, mojo, hoodoo... and in precisely the same way, magic haunts sciences, both hard and soft. One doesn't need to dig far to find elements of wizardry in neurolinguistic programming, or marketing, or psychology. We do not react directly to the world but rather the world as it is filtered by our nervous system's habits of punctuation. We break down the world according to what we expect to find, how we move indicates what is important to pay attention and what our word systems point out or hide. This is what Kenneth Burke
refers to as the terministic screen, and is very similar to what Robert Anton Wilson meant when he discussed Reality Tunnels in his work
Quantum Psychology.
Understand that this book is created from the viewpoint of two authors who have spent years examining the occult with a critical, albeit subjective, stance. This is an attempt to bring together trends in marketing, infoprenuership, and the occult so we ourselves could best understand how and where these trends converge.
Ok, maybe i overstated my case.
"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model. But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models. And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.
When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Ok, maybe i overstated my case.
"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model. But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models. And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.
When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.
A universe in which believing in Jehovah as the ultimate authority is a valid approach to making a concrete change in reality doesn't sound like the normally used scientific model.
A universe which is unknowably complex strikes me as in direct contradiction to the scientific worldview.
Also thanks for the book link Cram. I am really into both Memetics and magic, so I am sure this is gonna be interesting, and probably useful.
@ Rat
One thing: Accurate predictions: thats how we know
We make predictions and take in new evidence, or preform experiments, if the models are correct the prediction will also be correct
that's how we know
and to a smaller degree peer review: Objective minds looking at the same experiment in an attempt to destroy it's validity. Smart people are very good at convincing themselves of very dumb things, and you need an objective mind to explore pretty much anything with accuracy
Also the models are complimentary to each other. Elastic Rebound Theory would not be correct if the Theory of Plate Tectonics was incorrect. It's like a puzzle. One piece fits because the other piece is in the correct location.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Ok, maybe i overstated my case.
"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model. But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models. And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.
When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.
yeah -- but ultimately you're imposing a model on the universe outside of your explanations. "The Chao that cannot be described" and all that.
and scientific materialism doesn't have a monopoly on rational thought - it can exist within those other models too. That's why I avoid calling materialism the True model even though it has a pretty high resonance with my perceptions.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
A universe which is unknowably complex strikes me as in direct contradiction to the scientific worldview.
then you gotta go back to school
or take a science course
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Ok, maybe i overstated my case.
"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model. But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models. And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.
When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.
A universe in which believing in Jehovah as the ultimate authority is a valid approach to making a concrete change in reality doesn't sound like the normally used scientific model.
A universe which is unknowably complex strikes me as in direct contradiction to the scientific worldview.
And yet, if you follow the multiple models theory, there must be universe that contains both. When you begin breaking down how this can be true, you come to some interesting conclusions.
so we ourselves could best understand how and where these trends converge.
seems outlandish
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:45:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
A universe which is unknowably complex strikes me as in direct contradiction to the scientific worldview.
then you gotta go back to school
or take a science course
It may not be in contradiction to science classes, but it is in pretty direct contradiction to the sort of stuff spouted by scientific fundamentalists.
What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:53:22 PM
What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?
people that ask him to prove what ever claim he makes?
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Ok, maybe i overstated my case.
"Universe Prime" (U') in the above case may be just another model. But if you are going to believe in model switching, then U' is the model which contains and allows for the other models. And if you want to examine and try to objectively (as much as possible) describe and dissect the subjective experience of those sub-models, then U' needs to be constructed in a certain way.
When I attempt to define how U' is constructed to allow for model-switching and objective dissection, I seem to be leaning towards a scientific model.
I have found that many people seem to think this is how model agnosticism is supposed to work, but it doesn't jive with what I've read or thought about on the subject.
Scientific materialism is just as much a subjective model of reality as magic is... there are simply different criteria for what data you can model on that particular game. There is no useful way to describe some of my experiences within a scientific model, simply because there can be no outside observer and no repeatable experiments, well not with any real regularity. However, that doesn't make them false, just not workable on that particular model. Meteors were not able to be modeled in the 1700's because there was no outside observers, no repeatable experiments... just a bunch of unverifiable claims about rocks falling out of the sky. That doesn't mean rocks didn't fall out of the sky, just that such a thing couldn't be discussed on the subjective scientific model, until certain criteria were met.
For me, I don't have a base system that I live in other than model agnosticism, accepting that every description, explanation and observation about reality is a subjective collection of semantic symbols that desperately try to convey ideas. I don't think one needs to objectively explain the other models... rather, I try to experience multiple models, and compare contrast them all as subjective models... in the hope that through cross referencing models I might, at least, be able to grok what other people have experienced, observed and believe about the Universe.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:43:40 PM
@ Rat
One thing: Accurate predictions: thats how we know
*headdesk*
Accurate predictions speak far more to the human ability to observe patterns and make guesses about how they repeat. That doesn't tell us that their belief about why the patterns exist are true, only that we're really good at observing patterns and guessing what they're gonna do. Useful, yes. Know it's True? Hell, no.
Quote
We make predictions and take in new evidence, or preform experiments, if the models are correct the prediction will also be correct
that's how we know
and to a smaller degree peer review: Objective minds looking at the same experiment in an attempt to destroy it's validity. Smart people are very good at convincing themselves of very dumb things, and you need an objective mind to explore pretty much anything with accuracy
Also the models are complimentary to each other. Elastic Rebound Theory would not be correct if the Theory of Plate Tectonics was incorrect. It's like a puzzle. One piece fits because the other piece is in the correct location.
See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:53:22 PM
What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?
People who act as if Science has, in fact, explained everything, or is going to. Who argue in a manner similar to that used by fundamentalists of any other sort. Filled with appeals to absolute truth and with a firm conviction that they, and not you, understand how the universe really works. That they are RIGHT and you, who disagree with them are WRONG.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
And if the law of fives doesn't work for you, I'd suggest playing with it a little more. Numerology can be useful, and the law of fives is kind of like a cheatcode for numerology.
have you read http://discordia.Uncle BadTouch.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html ?
i still think you are getting your terms mixed, of course the law of fives works its a description of how human perception finds patterns. when you said magique works you are describing the pattern you saw, using an Aristotelian
it IS way of describing it,
QuoteI try to experience multiple models, and compare contrast them all as subjective models... in the hope that through cross referencing models I might, at least, be able to grok what other people have experienced, observed and believe about the Universe.
What model do you use when cross-referencing and comparing models?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:53:22 PM
What the fuck is a scientific fundamentalist, other than someone who does not follow scientific principles?
People who act as if Science has, in fact, explained everything, or is going to. Who argue in a manner similar to that used by fundamentalists of any other sort. Filled with appeals to absolute truth and with a firm conviction that they, and not you, understand how the universe really works. That they are RIGHT and you, who disagree with them are WRONG.
so, to put it simply,
not a scientist.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
*headdesk*
Accurate predictions speak far more to the human ability to observe patterns and make guesses about how they repeat. That doesn't tell us that their belief about why the patterns exist are true, only that we're really good at observing patterns and guessing what they're gonna do. Useful, yes. Know it's True? Hell, no.
thats a seriously retarded statement
rat your smarter then that
if you believe its untrue
PROVE IT
without the use of hippie bullshit
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.
again you have claims
PROVE IT
Quote from: fomenter on July 01, 2009, 07:00:14 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 06:42:14 PM
And if the law of fives doesn't work for you, I'd suggest playing with it a little more. Numerology can be useful, and the law of fives is kind of like a cheatcode for numerology.
have you read http://discordia.Uncle BadTouch.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html ?
i still think you are getting your terms mixed, of course the law of fives works its a description of how human perception finds patterns. when you said magique works you are describing the pattern you saw, using an Aristotelian it IS way of describing it,
Yeah, I've read starbucks pebbles. My point isn't that my experiences are more real than science, it is that they are just as real. It's all starbucks pebbles, and if you find a way to use the pebbles to influence your day to day life that's about as real as it gets.
LMNO I use different models to cross reference my models depending on which one is the most useful for the models I am cross referencing, and yeah, scientific fundamentalists make very poor scientists, although I expect with their singular devotion they could make good lab assistants.
Also, Thurnez Iza, if you haven't read the story that Fomentor references here I strongly suggest it. It illustrates rat's point about pattern recognition pretty nicely.
I'm with rat -- repeatable experiments and peer review are not in itself evidence that the thing you are describing is Really Real.
Mankind once had air tight proof that the all matter was composed of four elements. There were repeatable experiments. There was a consensus of scientists. Then we invented better technology and discovered that we were wrong.
If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.
Rat:
Quote from: JHM III, "Beneath Reality", pp24A surveyor will typically express distances and times relative to arbitrary points of reference, like the prime meridian, or Greenwich mean time. These choices clearly depend upon who draws the maps. Einstein wanted the rules of motion to depend only upon relative distances, which we might call "separations," and relative times or durations. Similarly, motions are usually measured with respect to a platform the observer defines to be stationary, such as the (daily rotating!) surface of the planet earth. So Einstein wanted the rules to depend only on relative velocities, as well as relative distances and times. This is why the whole program is called the theory of relativity. It is a systematic effort to eliminate the point of view of the observer completely from the laws of motion.
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 07:08:35 PM
If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.
I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 07:08:35 PM
If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.
I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results
That's partly due to the insistence that belief must be irrelevent. If the experiment is done with the intent of disproving the results, you disprove the results. Someone who assumes magic doesn't work makes an incredibly poor magician (and a relatively poor scientist since someone who assumes anything makes a relatively poor scientist)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 07:08:35 PM
If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.
I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results
gladly. The citations are in a book which is at home, so you'll have to hang on.
If you've never heard of a parapsychology case which satisfies scientific standards, you probably haven't read up on Parapsych much. It's hotly contested territory and there is strong evidence supporting both sides of the fence.
Parapsychologists are really serious about rigorous methodology and statistics. They operate at a much stricter level than the significance tests used elsewhere in psychology.
Most debate about parapsych surrounds the explanation, not the phenomenon. We can reproduce PK effects pretty reliably. But we still don't know how they work or what's really going on.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.
again you have claims
PROVE IT
Scientists for centuries, even with experiments and observations held that spontaneous generation was the Cause for maggots on meat, mice in old rags and rats on the nile river bank. Only after new equipment and instruments did such ideas change. The instruments were better than the sense organs of the humans.
Yet, we don't know if our current instruments are True, or just better. 1000 years from now, perhaps a new Ratatosk will be arguing that 1000 years ago people believed crazy shit because they didn't understand *insert newly observed phenomena here*.
Causation and Correlation are not the same. Scientific Methods are excellent for documenting correlation and making educated guesses about causation. However, that doesn't mean they're right... just that the data can be correlated.
@ BH
no - they are double blind fold tests which eliminate that possibility
do you even know how an experiment is run?
If not, Im actually starting to see the problem. People just don't understand how science works.
Also scientists don't reject a notion outright... if it was true we want to know... and there a lot of people would love if it was true. I know NO scientist that rejects a notion outright before there is evidence of it being false or ture.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 07:17:48 PM
That's partly due to the insistence that belief must be irrelevent. If the experiment is done with the intent of disproving the results, you disprove the results. Someone who assumes magic doesn't work makes an incredibly poor magician (and a relatively poor scientist since someone who assumes anything makes a relatively poor scientist)
I'm amazed at your ability to see inside the heads of all those scientists, were able to glean their assumptions, and then correlate them with their results.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 07:19:50 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 07:08:35 PM
If you want a more contemporary example, take a look at parapsychology. There are some phenomena which have been very meticulously documented by parapsychologists. Things like like psychokinesis can be repeatedly reproduced in a lab. Does that mean PK is real? It still depends on who you ask.
I have never heard of such a case that satisfies any type of standard
If there is a case then link me up
and I will link you up to the hundreds of peer reviewed physiological journals that did such experiments and found NO correlation on what the person was claiming and what was the results
gladly. The citations are in a book which is at home, so you'll have to hang on.
If you've never heard of a parapsychology case which satisfies scientific standards, you probably haven't read up on Parapsych much. It's hotly contested territory and there is strong evidence supporting both sides of the fence.
Parapsychologists are really serious about rigorous methodology and statistics. They operate at a much stricter level than the significance tests used elsewhere in psychology.
Most debate about parapsych surrounds the explanation, not the phenomenon. We can reproduce PK effects pretty reliably. But we still don't know how they work or what's really going on.
Cool
link me up when you can
Im not a physiologist obviously, but my sister is, and did several parapsychologist courses...
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.
again you have claims
PROVE IT
Scientists for centuries, even with experiments and observations held that spontaneous generation was the Cause for maggots on meat, mice in old rags and rats on the nile river bank. Only after new equipment and instruments did such ideas change. The instruments were better than the sense organs of the humans.
Yet, we don't know if our current instruments are True, or just better. 1000 years from now, perhaps a new Ratatosk will be arguing that 1000 years ago people believed crazy shit because they didn't understand *insert newly observed phenomena here*.
Causation and Correlation are not the same. Scientific Methods are excellent for documenting correlation and making educated guesses about causation. However, that doesn't mean they're right... just that the data can be correlated.
modern science didn't even come to be till the last couple of 100 years
the ground work was laid in the middle ages but during the renaissance there was a crack down
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 07:23:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 07:17:48 PM
That's partly due to the insistence that belief must be irrelevent. If the experiment is done with the intent of disproving the results, you disprove the results. Someone who assumes magic doesn't work makes an incredibly poor magician (and a relatively poor scientist since someone who assumes anything makes a relatively poor scientist)
I'm amazed at your ability to see inside the heads of all those scientists, were able to glean their assumptions, and then correlate them with their results.
Thank you thank you
*bows*
And for my next trick I'll get pissed off about something Thurnez said and make a complete ass of myself again.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:24:36 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:56:53 PM
See above. Sceintists have made many useful predictions from time to time, with peer review... and new information will entirely invalidate the old. Science at its best is about documenting and studying observations... observations, by nature of being humans... is subjective. Further, successful predictions may still have a false assumption as to WHY the prediction was successful.
again you have claims
PROVE IT
Scientists for centuries, even with experiments and observations held that spontaneous generation was the Cause for maggots on meat, mice in old rags and rats on the nile river bank. Only after new equipment and instruments did such ideas change. The instruments were better than the sense organs of the humans.
Yet, we don't know if our current instruments are True, or just better. 1000 years from now, perhaps a new Ratatosk will be arguing that 1000 years ago people believed crazy shit because they didn't understand *insert newly observed phenomena here*.
Causation and Correlation are not the same. Scientific Methods are excellent for documenting correlation and making educated guesses about causation. However, that doesn't mean they're right... just that the data can be correlated.
modern science didn't even come to be till the last couple of 100 years
the ground work was laid in the middle ages but during the renaissance there was a crack down
Yes, and many of the points I made were from the past 200 years. Before Louis Pasteur figured a couple things out, we had all sorts of causes... which were really correlations.
As humans, we rely first and foremost on a brain, which, if scientists are to be believed, evolved over thousands of years particularly adapted for surviving on this planet. To presume that such a thing can also understand the Real Universe seems possibly a bit off. When we add to that, an sensory system that only pulls in a small subset of information available... every observed picture is, by default incomplete. To claim that we have machines to observe for us, presumes that somehow we KNOW what we can't observe, we can conceive of all the stuff we can't sense and somehow we can make a machine that will give us precise observations... forgetting that if we made the damn thing, its as relative as we are.
That for me is key. I think science provides us with an awesome toolset for observing repeatable phenomena, making predictions, testing those predictions and examining the results and making more observations, more predictions, more tests etc... but, when we step from that to AND CAN FIGURE OUT THE REALLY REAL CAUSE FOR REAL.... well we're in lightning from your fingers and faeries on the back porch realms as far as I'm concerned.
again the conclusion I reached today is I don't think people understand how science works
its probably scientists fault that they don't
but they don't
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:44:10 PM
again the conclusion I reached today is I don't think people understand how science works
its probably scientists fault that they don't
but they don't
A conclusion is just where you stopped thinking... or at least that's what I've heard... :wink:
just a choice of words cause i don't know the words to use there
"I think" usually means to me that I have not made up my mind
ok it comes to my attention that I misquoted something
that i wanted proof in objectiveness or something like that
that is not what I meant - sorry
I want to know what you claim you could do
to what degree of accuracy
and what, if any, effect it can have in a testable environment
that is the proof I want
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
ok it comes to my attention that I misquoted something
that i wanted proof in objectiveness or something like that
that is not what I meant - sorry
I want to know what you claim you could do
to what degree of accuracy
and what, if any, effect it can have in a testable environment
that is the proof I want
Could you restate that, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
its not so much directed at you rat... more BH
but you could answer to
what your magic can do?
to what degree of accuracy?
and how it can actually effect the physical world?
now its just an internal world we get into something much different... then just describe the effect
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
ok it comes to my attention that I misquoted something
that i wanted proof in objectiveness or something like that
that is not what I meant - sorry
I want to know what you claim you could do
to what degree of accuracy
and what, if any, effect it can have in a testable environment
that is the proof I want
To what degree of accuracy, magic doesn't make things happen, it effects probability. I am also not pretending to be an incredibly powerful mage, just a reasonable one. It depends on the likelihood that whatever I am trying to make happen will happen without magic, so the level of accuracy is pretty subjective, but I'd say I have a level of accuracy of about 25% more or less.
What I can do, effect the likelihood of something happening. That applies to anything, but it is most effective in things that are 2/3 to 3/4 likely to happen already, So shooting lightning bolts is generally a waste of time and energy, even if it were possible for someone to do so.
What effect it can have in a testable environment. Give me my tarot cards (the tools I use for prediction the most often) then have me make guesses about something going on on the other side of a wall.
Don't let me use them and have me make guesses.
So long as my guesses are weighted between 2/3 and 3/4 right (for instance, I guess if a roll on a die is on the high side (3-6) or the low side (1-4) I'll get a statistically significant number more right with my cards than without them.
If you want to run this experiment I welcome it. The internet makes a pretty nice wall.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 08:06:00 PM
its not so much directed at you rat... more BH
but you could answer to
what your magic can do?
to what degree of accuracy?
and how it can actually effect the physical world?
now its just an internal world we get into something much different... then just describe the effect
Some Wiccans once bound me to "do harm to none".
That didn't really work out too well for them.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 08:08:34 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 07:57:16 PM
ok it comes to my attention that I misquoted something
that i wanted proof in objectiveness or something like that
that is not what I meant - sorry
I want to know what you claim you could do
to what degree of accuracy
and what, if any, effect it can have in a testable environment
that is the proof I want
To what degree of accuracy, magic doesn't make things happen, it effects probability. I am also not pretending to be an incredibly powerful mage, just a reasonable one. It depends on the likelihood that whatever I am trying to make happen will happen without magic, so the level of accuracy is pretty subjective, but I'd say I have a level of accuracy of about 25% more or less.
What I can do, effect the likelihood of something happening. That applies to anything, but it is most effective in things that are 2/3 to 3/4 likely to happen already, So shooting lightning bolts is generally a waste of time and energy, even if it were possible for someone to do so.
What effect it can have in a testable environment. Give me my tarot cards (the tools I use for prediction the most often) then have me make guesses about something going on on the other side of a wall.
Don't let me use them and have me make guesses.
So long as my guesses are weighted between 2/3 and 3/4 right (for instance, I guess if a roll on a die is on the high side (3-6) or the low side (1-4) I'll get a statistically significant number more right with my cards than without them.
If you want to run this experiment I welcome it. The internet makes a pretty nice wall.
if two people are willing to act as controls I will do this experiment
So, you're saying that you can guess 25% better than random chance?
I'll tell you what I'll do, if you want to do this. I will flip a coin 100 times, and PM my results to both Rat and Cain.
You will tell me the sequence of heads and tails. Normal probability says you have a 50% chance of being right for each flip.
If we factor in your claims, you should have 75% accuracy. That is, you will correctly predict 75 flips out of 100.
You game?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 08:06:00 PM
its not so much directed at you rat... more BH
but you could answer to
what your magic can do?
to what degree of accuracy?
and how it can actually effect the physical world?
now its just an internal world we get into something much different... then just describe the effect
Well, its sort of like surfing. The ocean is going in one direction. The waves head to the shore and will crash there. If you're smart and know all the right tricks, you might be able to ride that wave to the shore, rather than be tumbled about... if you're reall good you might cut across the waves and take a much longer ride to the shore.
Magic, to me, is kinda like that. If the Universe is heading for X, you probably aren't gonna change it, but you might be able to jockey for position a bit better.
I generally consider magic from a psychological perspective. Although some experiences I've had I can't explain in that model and have to go fish.
Let me think of some examples:
1. Evocation - Creating an entity to do your bidding.
In experimenting with Chaos Magic, I had to try evocation. Evoking an servitor....
My house was in the middle of the woods, there was a long gravel driveway which wound through the woods to our place. The up-side of this was that my darling and I could run around the house naked, smoking pot and not worry about it. The downside was that we never knew if someone was coming to our house, until they pulled into the parking space right in from of the giant bay window in the living room.
I found a squirrel skull in the yard and decided a squirrel servitor would be great for Ratatosk. So I did the rituals and created a squirrel servitor that was supposed to let me know whenever someone was coming down the drive.
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
-------
Invocation - Calling up some sort of entity
I tried invocation in Thelemic ritual and invoked Therion. The experience I've shared here in the past and I have several possible causes as to the experience... However, the more important thing, was that I followed the methods other people followed and had similar results. Correlation yes, Causation, I dunno.
-------
Sigil Magic - Using Sigils to modify perception and future outcomes
This one, more than the others felt like surfing the cosmic waves (to reference my earlier metaphor).
I had spent a year reading Bob Wilson, Stang, Antero Ali, Carroll, Hine, Farber, Leary, Sirius, etc etc I just couldn't get enough after having broken free of the JW's. At some point I decided that somehow I would interact with these people. So I used sigil magic as laid out in Liber Null and Psychonaut. The sigil was some variation on "I will meet/work with these authors that impress me" or something (I don't remember the exact phrase). I did the rituals and within about six months, I had found Maybe Logic Academy, was taking the first ever virtual class that Pete Carroll taught, ended up rescuing the Admin after a hacker got hold of them and then became the webmaster for the school. I got to take classes from every one of the people I was interested in, I got to hang out with them outside of class and ... well... nothing says magic as much as picking up your phone and hearing "Hail Eris, this is Bob Wilson", "Hi Clyde, Pete Carroll here", or "Honey Antero Ali called while you were out, here's his number...".
At this point, the academy provides me with a nice little bump in income, an awesome resource for me (I get to see/read all the classes) and I've got to help design and shape RAW legacy on the web.
Would all of that happened if I hadn't done the sigil magic? I dunno, maybe I would have lucked out and the waves of the universe would have tossed me just right... personally I don't know, but again we have correlation with expectations.
Rat I assure you I have NO idea what your talking about
sounds more like ritualistic spiritualism to me... almost like native American shamanism (its a poor example I know)
As I was saying to Cram in IRC I could only take magic for its dictionary term, its the only understanding of it I know... and that doesn`t seem to qualify
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 08:19:59 PM
So, you're saying that you can guess 25% better than random chance?
I'll tell you what I'll do, if you want to do this. I will flip a coin 100 times, and PM my results to both Rat and Cain.
You will tell me the sequence of heads and tails. Normal probability says you have a 50% chance of being right for each flip.
If we factor in your claims, you should have 75% accuracy. That is, you will correctly predict 75 flips out of 100.
You game?
when working at 50% my accuracy is worse. I do think I could pull off a statistically significant level of correct answers, but I doubt it would be a full 25 out of 100.
So, 100 rolls of the dice would work better?
Or maybe, I'll cut the tarot deck 100 times?
You choose the action.
Also, I'll PM Nigel and 000 my expectations of this experiment, so we can note my assumptions after we're done.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 08:34:30 PM
Rat I assure you I have NO idea what your talking about
sounds more like ritualistic spiritualism to me... almost like native American shamanism (its a poor example I know)
As I was saying to Cram in IRC I could only take magic for its dictionary term, its the only understanding of it I know... and that doesn`t seem to qualify
Rat gave a pretty good description of examples of magic working in his life. I assume from how frustrated you got about my (and others) misunderstandings about science that you can see just how frustrating your approach to Magic is to myself and others who use it as a useful tool. And yes, Ritualistic Spiritualism is not a bad descriptive phrase. Magic is just quicker and easier to say.
Also, that is the reason for the silly spelling that you and some others were making fun of, to distinguish Magic, as described by Rat in his examples from his life, from Magic, as in what David Copperfield does, or Magic, as in throwing burning hands spells.
I wasn't talking to you
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 08:37:18 PM
So, 100 rolls of the dice would work better?
Or maybe, I'll cut the tarot deck 100 times?
You choose the action.
Also, I'll PM Nigel and 000 my expectations of this experiment, so we can note my assumptions after we're done.
Dice or a deck would be better yes. Dice are easy, and there are online ones that will let you generate a whole bunch at once so that's probably a good approach. Also I use dice a lot in my day to day life (roleplaying) so I think I can work fairly well with them. If we go with high low guessing (I guess if it is 3 or above or 3 or below) there's a 2/3 weight that I am going to be right randomly, that's in the range that magic is most effective, so that is the range I would prefer. Then we can measure and see how far I am from 66% statistically.
3 or above or 3 or below?
I think you mean "1-3 or 4-6". "1-3 or 3-6" skews the percentages, as you're predicting 3 either way.
Plus, that's still 50%
I think he means 1-4 and 3-6
which gives him range in the middle and prevents a statistical problem
but that could be weighed out with two control subjects
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 08:44:18 PM
3 or above or 3 or below?
I think you mean "1-3 or 4-6". "1-3 or 3-6" skews the percentages, as you're predicting 3 either way.
Plus, that's still 50%
actually I meant 4 or below or 3 and above. And yes, it does skew the percentages, that is the point.
in other words 1-4 or 3-6
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Other than the 23, why is 2/3 "where magic is most effective"?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 08:34:30 PM
Rat I assure you I have NO idea what your talking about
sounds more like ritualistic spiritualism to me... almost like native American shamanism (its a poor example I know)
As I was saying to Cram in IRC I could only take magic for its dictionary term, its the only understanding of it I know... and that doesn`t seem to qualify
Ok, let's back up.
Magic, in the sense I use it, draws from Crowley, Chaos Magic, Metamagic and Memetic Magic.
Crowley said that magic was "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"
Hell, for Crowley any conscious act of will was a manifestation of Magic. To put it another way, magic, for Crowley was when the Robot was not in charge.
So, the idea is that magic is a loosely related set of tools which you can use to cause changes in conformity with your Will. In some cases those may be external. I use 'magic' on co-workers all the time... some people might say I manipulate them into agreeing with my point of view, but thats so icky sounding ;-). Though in most cases, it appears that the general changes are to the Magicians own BiP... However, modifying your BiP, in and of itself may have external effects.
The biggest difference between something like ritual spiritualism or Shamanism is a philosophical one. A spiritualist believes that they have evoked a squirrel spirit. a Shaman, might think something else. A magician from the schools I've studied, doesn't necessarily have any view that 'spirits' exist. Rather, it might be a manifestation of Will, or a subroutine programmed into the subconscious.
Magic, as studied in the past even before Crowley appears to have much more to do with this sort of thing, than any nonsense about binding people to do no harm or talking with the dead. Even old venerable manuscripts like Abremelin the Mage seem to live in a subsystem far more closely allied with what I'm talking about here, than any hocus pocus mumbo jumbo spell casting, love potions etc.
My current favorite position on Magic is that its is a useful set of tools which people have used to modify their Black Iron Prison. Most of these appear to be psychological. Bob Wilson seemed to hold that view, Israel Regardie (one of Crowley's students) claimed that same view as being his and AC's (see the book "The Middle Pillar", in the forward). Lon Milo Duquette argues a similar tack and uses freemason rituals to show the same basic tools at use, though modern masons, in his view have no real understanding of WHY they do what they do. Antero Ali in "Towards and Archeology of the Soul" tears apart as many magical/belief systems as possible, finds the similarities and tries to make it work with no metaphors/symbols except those useful for the specific magician.
The thing I found most interesting as I studied magic was that it does appear to be repeatable and observable in some sense. However, it isn't consistent among every person and confirmation bias, etc may well play a part. However, they do seem to be USEFUL. Many of the things I've tried have been followed by events which could count as results. I think this sort of Magic was what RAW was thinking of when he coined one of my favorite phrases:
Reality is what you can get away with, If you can't get away with it, it just ain't real.
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
i liked rats description of magic he has done i have always taken magic experiences to be an sign post to the understanding he came to in this sentence
QuoteSince then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas...
the event and the ritual to get it has little or no meaning in and of itself it happens as a guidepost to the model agnostic revelation that follows .. that tree may have always had a chattering squirrel living in it and the ritual (a tool(in this case a useful one)) took a blinder off his perception and moved it into the "notice this" range.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 08:50:33 PM
Other than the 23, why is 2/3 "where magic is most effective"?
I got that range from Liber Kaos by Peter Carroll. There's several pages of math regarding the level of magical energy surrounding it, but as far as I can tell it is based on his direct observations and so far it has matched fairly well with my own observations. Although in re reading the book to find the graph i found that the range is a bit more generous than I had though, .5 to .7, which is more like 1 half to 2/3 however, as i said, I'm nt the best magician in the world, or close to it, so 2/3 isw going to be closer to my own zone of maximum result.
Quote from: fomenter on July 01, 2009, 08:57:28 PM
i liked rats description of magic he has done i have always taken magic experiences to be an sign post to the understanding he came to in this sentence QuoteSince then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas...
the event and the ritual to get it has little or no meaning in and of itself it happens as a guidepost to the model agnostic revelation that follows .. that tree may have always had a chattering squirrel living in it and the ritual (a tool(in this case a useful one)) took a blinder off his perception and moved it into the "notice this" range.
One of my favorite explanations was that perhaps, at the edge of my senses I could hear gravel crunch under the wheels of a car when they turned down our driveway. It went unnoticed for a long time, until I told my brain to pay attention. Then my brain made me think of squirrels chattering whenever it caught that crunch.
Side note, I personally have never found magic to be useful in guessing dice rolls, card draws etc. I am interested to see if BH has any success.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
But you apparently have enough of them to find the skull of one in your yard, while there are tons in my yard and I have never seen a dead one lying around, save for roadkill.
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
But you apparently have enough of them to find the skull of one in your yard, while there are tons in my yard and I have never seen a dead one lying around, save for roadkill.
So are you saying that a real squirrel outside was chattering in my head? The noise was not external... that is, it didn't sound like a squirrel in a tree gibbering... it was a loud and clear noise in my head... or at least I think it was in my head. Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated at first.
like I repeatedly said if it's internal it's different, and it's probably something I will never understand
but if it's an external force that could effect something which could measured... that's a totally different matter all together
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
But you apparently have enough of them to find the skull of one in your yard, while there are tons in my yard and I have never seen a dead one lying around, save for roadkill.
THATS BECAUSE THEY JUST DIE IN HIS YARD APPARENTLY
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 09:04:53 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
But you apparently have enough of them to find the skull of one in your yard, while there are tons in my yard and I have never seen a dead one lying around, save for roadkill.
So are you saying that a real squirrel outside was chattering in my head? The noise was not external... that is, it didn't sound like a squirrel in a tree gibbering... it was a loud and clear noise in my head... or at least I think it was in my head. Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated at first.
That clears it up a little.
QuoteSo, the idea is that magic is a loosely related set of tools which you can use to cause changes in conformity with your Will. In some cases those may be external. I use 'magic' on co-workers all the time... some people might say I manipulate them into agreeing with my point of view, but thats so icky sounding . Though in most cases, it appears that the general changes are to the Magicians own BiP... However, modifying your BiP, in and of itself may have external effects.
Can you give an example of a bar and how you could modify it?
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 09:01:54 PM
One of my favorite explanations was that perhaps, at the edge of my senses I could hear gravel crunch under the wheels of a car when they turned down our driveway. It went unnoticed for a long time, until I told my brain to pay attention. Then my brain made me think of squirrels chattering whenever it caught that crunch.
Side note, I personally have never found magic to be useful in guessing dice rolls, card draws etc. I am interested to see if BH has any success.
same here it has only ever been a tool to alter perception and come to realizations about the nature of perception, i have never had luck with card guessing dice rolling either. :wink:
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 09:09:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 09:04:53 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 09:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Risus on July 01, 2009, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 08:29:26 PM
From then on, I would generally hear a loud chittering noise and have time to hide the bong and put on pants before someone pulled into the parking area. Since then I've tried different models to explain it and I have a few ideas... but the methods I used were the same methods other people used and the outcome was similar to their outcome. Correlation I can see, causation I'm still unsure of.
What do you mean by this? My dogs bark every time someone pulls into the driveway, but I'm pretty sure they aren't magic.
Ah, but I assume that your dog actually exists, correct? The squirrel, as far as observable reality is concerned, didn't exist.
But you apparently have enough of them to find the skull of one in your yard, while there are tons in my yard and I have never seen a dead one lying around, save for roadkill.
So are you saying that a real squirrel outside was chattering in my head? The noise was not external... that is, it didn't sound like a squirrel in a tree gibbering... it was a loud and clear noise in my head... or at least I think it was in my head. Sorry if that wasn't clearly stated at first.
That clears it up a little.
QuoteSo, the idea is that magic is a loosely related set of tools which you can use to cause changes in conformity with your Will. In some cases those may be external. I use 'magic' on co-workers all the time... some people might say I manipulate them into agreeing with my point of view, but thats so icky sounding . Though in most cases, it appears that the general changes are to the Magicians own BiP... However, modifying your BiP, in and of itself may have external effects.
Can you give an example of a bar and how you could modify it?
Sure.
When I came out of the JW system... that had been all I had ever known. Every aspect of my BiP was saturated with the JW view. Even though I had recoginized their system as false, the bars were still all there. The reason I invoked Therion, was that he was representative of raw male power. At one time I was very shy, especially around girls. I had dated one girl and married her. I thought any sort of wild sex was a terrible ideas, drugs scared the hell out of me and I considered myself ugly, scrawny and stupid (no college rode hard in my mind).
So, based on what I read, I needed to invoke my masculinity. I needed to break free from this false prison. During the ritual I left my body and the ritual location, I was on a hill in a field somewhere... and when I looked at my arms they were covered in tawny fur. I could see in many directions at once as though I had multiple heads and while involved in this a woman appeared. She was Babelon, or at least that's what I said in my head, and we had sex. In reality, this was all part of the ritual... in my head this was completely real.
From that day on, my view of myself changed dramatically. I became the assertive, opinionated asshole you know today :) I no longer think I'm ugly or uneducated, my views on sex, drugs etc etc have done a 180 and within weeks I was in orgies, became a swinger and have had all sorts of awesome experiences with beautiful women.
Would that have happened anyway? Probably over time, or maybe not to the extent it has... I dunno. But for me, that was one of the most powerful 'breaking free of the BiP' experiences I've had. It felt like I had broken free, it felt like the old me crumbled when Therion possessed me and this new me rose from the experience.
Maybe all of that is in my head, but then the whole BiP is in there too, so maybe that works ;-)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2009, 08:59:24 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 08:50:33 PM
Other than the 23, why is 2/3 "where magic is most effective"?
I got that range from Liber Kaos by Peter Carroll. There's several pages of math regarding the level of magical energy surrounding it, but as far as I can tell it is based on his direct observations and so far it has matched fairly well with my own observations. Although in re reading the book to find the graph i found that the range is a bit more generous than I had though, .5 to .7, which is more like 1 half to 2/3 however, as i said, I'm nt the best magician in the world, or close to it, so 2/3 isw going to be closer to my own zone of maximum result.
Starting a new thread for this.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21358.msg722072#msg722072
I want you to know that your question - about what model you use to describe a multi-model universe - has been eating me today
I guess my best answer so far is: I don't know anything with enough certainty to answer that question
I checked off Agnostic on the survey ITT.
If I didn't have that option, and I had to answer, I think I'd put my money on scientific materialism. But I have to fall back on the e-prime... I think I'd go with scientific materialsm today. There have been times in my life where I would have filled out the test differently.
I try out beliefs for a little while and see how they work, but that agnosticism is always nagging in the back of the head, easily silenced, but still there. I was a straight-up sun worshipper for a while, but most of the time it was "I'm a joke sun worshipper." Maybe once or twice I was actually in the headspace. And only for a little.
I have to wonder if agnosticism is a dead end in that respect. After you realize that every model is flawed, can you really use those models again?
AFTER AGNOSTICISM, WHAT'S LEFT?
Quote from: Cramulus on July 02, 2009, 01:14:00 AM
I want you to know that your question - about what model you use to describe a multi-model universe - has been eating me today
I guess my best answer so far is: I don't know anything with enough certainty to answer that question
I checked off Agnostic on the survey ITT.
If I didn't have that option, and I had to answer, I think I'd put my money on scientific materialism. But I have to fall back on the e-prime... I think I'd go with scientific materialsm today. There have been times in my life where I would have filled out the test differently.
I try out beliefs for a little while and see how they work, but that agnosticism is always nagging in the back of the head, easily silenced, but still there. I was a straight-up sun worshipper for a while, but most of the time it was "I'm a joke sun worshipper." Maybe once or twice I was actually in the headspace. And only for a little.
I have to wonder if agnosticism is a dead end in that respect. After you realize that every model is flawed, can you really use those models again?
AFTER AGNOSTICISM, WHAT'S LEFT?
model agnostic?
if pressed for a definition i would give that as my answer (i might e prime it as well and ad at this point in time) all models are flawed and limited but if you add relativity into it "this model seems to me at this point in time to be the most accurate or the most useful"... or that's what i am thinking right now as i post this anyway..
Cram, I know what you mean, which is why I've been crap at describing it today.
It reminds me of some weird math thing... "The model that contains all models", and shit like that. Hofsteader?
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 05:11:26 PM
I find there are people in the occult that believe in crazy shit.
Edited for completeness.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 05:29:03 PM
It's the fuckers who channel Moon Energy and talks to Dragons you have to watch out for sell shit to.
Edited for Canada Bill Jones.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:18:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:14:02 PM
To crib from RAW: "The only thing I believe in that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand."
I agree with statement
We probably only understand 10 percent of the universe...
where do you get that figure?
it's just a "feeling", right?
you cannot know this. and if someone were to ask me, I would pick it (according to my "feeling"), much, much lower. partly because I believe it's so, and another few orders of magnitude smaller just to be on the safe side.
hell I might even judge it at
epsilon (as in, any arbitrarily small number larger than zero)
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 06:25:16 PM
the pet belief system I'm trying on this year is the one pushed in the Art of Memetics, where we're basically just a point of consciousness suspended in these nested egregores. And we ourselves are not a singular person, but a nested multiplicity of ideas and identities.
So at a very fine level you have cells. If you zoom in to see just cells, they look like like individual entities.
-zoom out and you see tissue
--zoom out and you see a person
---zoom out and you see a group of people
----zoom out and you see a business, religion, nation...
there's intelligence at all levels. This is fractal logic. Your body has circulatory, nervous, and immune systems. Your country has them too. We're all parts of the same giant entity.
bolded some bits i think are important. thanks Cram for putting this idea into words. this has actually been my belief system for a long, long time. maybe from reading Gödel Escher Bach, but I think already before that even, the first time I came up with a good idea about how consciousness and "free will" work, or are made up of, I immediately saw the correspondence with larger scale structures such as corporations, nations and economy. I thought if intelligence emerges out of complex information-flow networks that have certain properties*, then it must be happening on all levels (but on widely varying timescales btw. some stuff happens so slowly that you can't really communicate with it in one lifetime. the earth ecosystem, or a forest comes to mind).
the good thing about this idea is, that I can argue it scientifically.
however, it is NOT a scientific theory. in some ways (but not really) it is a bit similar to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. which was one of the textbook examples of pseudoscience in one of my philosophy classes. the problem with it being, that it is not falsifiable. this whole "fractal memetic network intelligence" idea, is also not falsifiable, so it's not a proper scientific theory.
but that's okay.
science works, no doubt about that. but being the strict formal system that it is, it logically follows that it either cannot produce all true theories, or that it must produce paradoxes (so far it has done both). hence, there must be true theories, that cannot be proven by science. simple as that. if you done a bit of philosophy of science, you should know that the scientific method does have its limitations, but that's okay, cause IMO it is still the most useful system we got.
just, don't confuse it with "the only way to Truth", cause that's nearly (but not quite) as bad as the mistake fundies make.
*unfortunately I only have a vague idea what kind of properties are required to distinguish a network with the potential for intelligence from one that doesnt. I do, however, have a sort of gut-feeling about it. I should probably lend it some more thought and work that out for myself.
Sometimes, Trip, I want to have your baby... in some sense :wink:
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2009, 08:28:57 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 01, 2009, 06:18:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 06:14:02 PM
To crib from RAW: "The only thing I believe in that the Universe is far more complex than I will ever understand."
I agree with statement
We probably only understand 10 percent of the universe...
where do you get that figure?
it's just a "feeling", right?
you cannot know this. and if someone were to ask me, I would pick it (according to my "feeling"), much, much lower. partly because I believe it's so, and another few orders of magnitude smaller just to be on the safe side.
hell I might even judge it at epsilon (as in, any arbitrarily small number larger than zero)
It's a very conservative estimate
based on several things I read
link up and write things out
after pancakes, coffee, email checking, ect.
I believe the Universe is essentially complex.
How complex, I couldn't say. It is to me, not a unknown known. I think if we were able to put a number on it, we'd have to know how much there is that could ever be explained, and tally that up to what we already know.
Which would be...tricky (though it would be a great thesis, and get you tons of funding).
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 05:25:44 PM
I believe the Universe is essentially complex.
How complex, I couldn't say. It is to me, not a unknown known. I think if we were able to put a number on it, we'd have to know how much there is that could ever be explained, and tally that up to what we already know.
Which would be...tricky (though it would be a great thesis, and get you tons of funding).
Way back in the late 70's Carl Sagan asked the questions if we could ever even know... its a good read, but remember some of the specifics are 20 years out of date
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/sagan_science.html
QuoteFortunately for us, we live in a universe that has at least important parts that are knowable. Our common-sense experience and our evolutionary history have prepared us to understand something of the workaday world. When we go into other realms, however, common sense and ordinary intuition turn out to be highly unreliable guides. It is stunning that as we go close to the speed of light our mass increases indefinitely, we shrink towards zero thickness in the direction of motion, and time for us comes as near to stopping as we would like. Many people think that this is silly, and every week or two I get a letter from someone who complains to me about it. But it is a virtually certain consequence not just of experiment but also of Albert Einstein's brilliant analysis of space and time called the Special Theory of Relativity. It does not matter that these effects seem unreasonable to us. We are not in the habit of traveling close to the speed of light. The testimony of our common sense is suspect at high velocities.
QuoteThe idea that the world places restrictions on what humans might do is frustrating. Why shouldn't we be able to have intermediate rotational positions? Why can't we travel faster than the speed of light? But so far as we can tell, this is the way the universe is constructed. Such prohibitions not only press us toward a little humility; they also make the world more knowable. Every restriction corresponds to a law of nature, a regulation of the universe. The more restrictions there are on what matter and energy can do, the more knowledge human beings can attain. Whether in some sense the universe is ultimately knowable depends not only on how many natural laws there are that encompass widely divergent phenomena, but also on whether we have the openness and the intellectual capacity to understand such laws. Our formulations of the regularities of nature are surely dependent on how the brain is built, but also, and to a significant degree, on how the universe is built.
For myself, I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull, as boring as the heaven of some weak-minded theologians. A universe that is unknowable is no fit place for a thinking being. The ideal universe for us is one very much like the universe we inhabit. And I would guess that this is not really much of a coincidence.
Quote from: Cain on July 02, 2009, 05:25:44 PM
I believe the Universe is essentially complex.
How complex, I couldn't say. It is to me, not a unknown known. I think if we were able to put a number on it, we'd have to know how much there is that could ever be explained, and tally that up to what we already know.
Which would be...tricky (though it would be a great thesis, and get you tons of funding).
Yes yes. Oh yes baby, yes.
SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS
it just makes them shit more
Quote from: ¶πᶿϠ on July 03, 2009, 07:44:24 PM
SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS
it just makes them shit more
:|
You should change your name to "static" or "carrier noise".
i liked narf but he wasnt tied on right
I was reading somewhere that the complexity of a system "c":
is inversely proportional to the number of dimensions "m" used
with calculations regardening complexity...
just a humble token of the 9/10 = 11 thing...
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 03, 2009, 08:31:50 PM
I was reading somewhere that the complexity of a system "c":
is inversely proportional to the number of dimensions "m" used
with calculations regardening complexity...
just a humble token of the 9/10 = 11 thing...
Could you dig up something a little more specific to explain what you mean?
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2009, 08:48:51 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 06:25:16 PM
the pet belief system I'm trying on this year is the one pushed in the Art of Memetics, where we're basically just a point of consciousness suspended in these nested egregores. And we ourselves are not a singular person, but a nested multiplicity of ideas and identities.
So at a very fine level you have cells. If you zoom in to see just cells, they look like like individual entities.
-zoom out and you see tissue
--zoom out and you see a person
---zoom out and you see a group of people
----zoom out and you see a business, religion, nation...
there's intelligence at all levels. This is fractal logic. Your body has circulatory, nervous, and immune systems. Your country has them too. We're all parts of the same giant entity.
bolded some bits i think are important. thanks Cram for putting this idea into words. this has actually been my belief system for a long, long time. maybe from reading Gödel Escher Bach, but I think already before that even, the first time I came up with a good idea about how consciousness and "free will" work, or are made up of, I immediately saw the correspondence with larger scale structures such as corporations, nations and economy. I thought if intelligence emerges out of complex information-flow networks that have certain properties*, then it must be happening on all levels (but on widely varying timescales btw. some stuff happens so slowly that you can't really communicate with it in one lifetime. the earth ecosystem, or a forest comes to mind).
the good thing about this idea is, that I can argue it scientifically.
however, it is NOT a scientific theory. in some ways (but not really) it is a bit similar to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. which was one of the textbook examples of pseudoscience in one of my philosophy classes. the problem with it being, that it is not falsifiable. this whole "fractal memetic network intelligence" idea, is also not falsifiable, so it's not a proper scientific theory.
but that's okay.
science works, no doubt about that. but being the strict formal system that it is, it logically follows that it either cannot produce all true theories, or that it must produce paradoxes (so far it has done both). hence, there must be true theories, that cannot be proven by science. simple as that. if you done a bit of philosophy of science, you should know that the scientific method does have its limitations, but that's okay, cause IMO it is still the most useful system we got.
just, don't confuse it with "the only way to Truth", cause that's nearly (but not quite) as bad as the mistake fundies make.
*unfortunately I only have a vague idea what kind of properties are required to distinguish a network with the potential for intelligence from one that doesnt. I do, however, have a sort of gut-feeling about it. I should probably lend it some more thought and work that out for myself.
You're both talking about emergence, and I love you.
This popular chemistry demonstration is often called turning water into wine or water into blood. It's really a simple example of a pH indicator. Phenolphthalein is added to water, which is then poured into a second glass containing a base. If the pH of the resulting solution is right, you can make the water turn from clear to red to clear again, as long as you like.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/waterwine.htm
ITS WINE its water ITS WINE :lulz:
Quote from: noise maker on July 04, 2009, 04:33:23 PM
This popular chemistry demonstration is often called turning water into wine or water into blood. It's really a simple example of a pH indicator. Phenolphthalein is added to water, which is then poured into a second glass containing a base. If the pH of the resulting solution is right, you can make the water turn from clear to red to clear again, as long as you like.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/ht/waterwine.htm
ITS WINE its water ITS WINE :lulz:
aka ITS A CHEMICAL its a chemical ITS A CHEMICAL . . . hmmm kinda lost something in the translation there. when i was a little girl my dad was an industrial chemist and he took me into the lab one day and one of the guys did this trick for me. i remember it vividly though it is over 50 yrs ago but i can honestly say i've never found it lulzy - do you think i am doing it wrong . . . ?
they probally explained what was going on, to outsiders. you are turning a clear liquid red and then back.
dont you wanna pretend to be jesus in public too?
Quote from: noise maker on July 04, 2009, 07:36:04 PM
dont you wanna pretend to be jesus in public too?
nah . . . i never wanted to follow the crowd
arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads ;-)
we try to synthesize them : compress information
sierpinsky (sp.=?) triangle next target?
if the model of logic used b/t frames were not based
on the euclidian 2-space geometry?
would that make sense?
Fibonacci has served us well, still,
"not everything thing that can be counted..."
Counting meaning as a quality expresses our interest
in proving ourselves right?
How would we communicate this in NEWSPEAK?
To bait the argument:
What if Kant stood-up and said-
Wait, stop, God I beseech you listen to
this pale remanence, before thee Wed:
what is the unifying principle?
The Ring?
How do you picture that ring?
Quote from: Kai on July 04, 2009, 04:04:31 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 02, 2009, 08:48:51 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2009, 06:25:16 PM
the pet belief system I'm trying on this year is the one pushed in the Art of Memetics, where we're basically just a point of consciousness suspended in these nested egregores. And we ourselves are not a singular person, but a nested multiplicity of ideas and identities.
So at a very fine level you have cells. If you zoom in to see just cells, they look like like individual entities.
-zoom out and you see tissue
--zoom out and you see a person
---zoom out and you see a group of people
----zoom out and you see a business, religion, nation...
there's intelligence at all levels. This is fractal logic. Your body has circulatory, nervous, and immune systems. Your country has them too. We're all parts of the same giant entity.
bolded some bits i think are important. thanks Cram for putting this idea into words. this has actually been my belief system for a long, long time. maybe from reading Gödel Escher Bach, but I think already before that even, the first time I came up with a good idea about how consciousness and "free will" work, or are made up of, I immediately saw the correspondence with larger scale structures such as corporations, nations and economy. I thought if intelligence emerges out of complex information-flow networks that have certain properties*, then it must be happening on all levels (but on widely varying timescales btw. some stuff happens so slowly that you can't really communicate with it in one lifetime. the earth ecosystem, or a forest comes to mind).
the good thing about this idea is, that I can argue it scientifically.
however, it is NOT a scientific theory. in some ways (but not really) it is a bit similar to Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. which was one of the textbook examples of pseudoscience in one of my philosophy classes. the problem with it being, that it is not falsifiable. this whole "fractal memetic network intelligence" idea, is also not falsifiable, so it's not a proper scientific theory.
but that's okay.
science works, no doubt about that. but being the strict formal system that it is, it logically follows that it either cannot produce all true theories, or that it must produce paradoxes (so far it has done both). hence, there must be true theories, that cannot be proven by science. simple as that. if you done a bit of philosophy of science, you should know that the scientific method does have its limitations, but that's okay, cause IMO it is still the most useful system we got.
just, don't confuse it with "the only way to Truth", cause that's nearly (but not quite) as bad as the mistake fundies make.
*unfortunately I only have a vague idea what kind of properties are required to distinguish a network with the potential for intelligence from one that doesnt. I do, however, have a sort of gut-feeling about it. I should probably lend it some more thought and work that out for myself.
You're both talking about emergence, and I love you.
(http://www.futurerelease.com/old/0612_caep_02z%2bcustomize%2bhavoline_extended_life_antifreeze_coolant.jpg)
happy 4th!
"not everything thing that can be counted..."
how about you change what you count
Quote from: noise maker on July 05, 2009, 12:47:03 AM
"not everything thing that can be counted..."
how about you change what you count
I like, this, on many levels :lulz:
(cannot argue w/ quantum physics ;-)
is it the thing that changes when we count,
or did we forget to count the way we change?
Reverend, I'm sorry but I don't think I understand anything you're talking about. :?
arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads
threads run single file, carry over is only meh
we try to synthesize them : compress information
meme programming?
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 04, 2009, 10:07:50 PM
arg. \/ complicated w/ different threads ;-)
we try to synthesize them : compress information
sierpinsky (sp.=?) triangle next target?
if the model of logic used b/t frames were not based
on the euclidian 2-space geometry?
would that make sense?
Fibonacci has served us well, still,
"not everything thing that can be counted..."
Counting meaning as a quality expresses our interest
in proving ourselves right?
How would we communicate this in NEWSPEAK?
To bait the argument:
What if Kant stood-up and said-
Wait, stop, God I beseech you listen to
this pale remanence, before thee Wed:
what is the unifying principle?
The Ring?
How do you picture that ring?
Oh, boy. Word salad. :|
un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 05, 2009, 08:38:11 PM
un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)
:|
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2009, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 05, 2009, 08:38:11 PM
un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)
:|
do you wanna say it or shall i?
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 05, 2009, 08:38:11 PM
un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)
Enki]-[, did you let ZALGoS in here to have an account? Just curious, cause this poster sounds /very/ familiar.
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on July 05, 2009, 09:19:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 05, 2009, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. Stanley Baldwin on July 05, 2009, 08:38:11 PM
un-tossing salad requires a "retro-retractive" toll for wastelands to grow, so,
in lieu of any catch-22, look what the cat dragged in tonight... (eh, next post
will explain how we made it to the bathroom in Casablanka)
:|
do you wanna say it or shall i?
Go right ahead.
Oh, please let it be a fucking bot made by Enki.
Oh, please please please.
QuoteOh, please let it be a fucking bot made by Enki.
Oh, please please please.
i was gonna rock the "where do we get these fuckos" - TGRR (thats you!) angle, but that is also appropriate.
39 more posts
:sad:
I'm getting impatient
Quote from: Cramulus on July 02, 2009, 01:14:00 AM
I guess my best answer so far is: I don't know anything with enough certainty to answer that question
I checked off Agnostic on the survey ITT.
...
AFTER AGNOSTICISM, WHAT'S LEFT?
I think Agnosticism (maybe ignosticism back a couple pages?) is what it eventually boils down for me too. I think the moment one identifies something as a 'belief' the mortar for one's BIP is hardened. There are beliefs out there that may seem comforting but then the world is defined and it becomes a 'This and not this' situation. This, i think, is what creates fear. One ends up siding with the 'good' side of a belief and shuns the 'bad'. Constant aversion builds up and one is fucked. Rather, that which is feared becomes an lesser option rather than an aversion. It seems to me that living spontaneously is more thrilling and creates more novelty than going around trying to 'fit' the world into a predefined model. Honestly, even calling it 'agnosticism/ignosticism' implies definition ... but i'll use it for lack of a better term.
The basis of things as a perpetual falling, while, every now and then, stopping and allowing myself to be seduced with various ideas really works for me.
I see no sense in creating a division between myself, my environment, what is spiritual, what is material, and so on.
As to the mushroom thing, I've heard TGRR say that it's not a religious experience...that you're just 'high' before. But if I consider everything around me as a religious experience then there is no division but simply a different perspective that may or may not be useful. Heh, I don't really know if that is agreeing or disagreeing.
anyhow, that's me, atm.
QuoteI think the moment one identifies something as a 'belief' the mortar for one's BIP is hardened. There are beliefs out there that may seem comforting but then the world is defined and it becomes a 'This and not this' situation. This, i think, is what creates fear. One ends up siding with the 'good' side of a belief and shuns the 'bad'. Constant aversion builds up and one is fucked. Rather, that which is feared becomes an lesser option rather than an aversion. It seems to me that living spontaneously is more thrilling and creates more novelty than going around trying to 'fit' the world into a predefined model.
I don't know if getting caught in perpetual existential thought is good either though. If you want to change your BIP, you have to have a cell to work with. If you want to alter your maps, you have to have a map to start from. You can only change whats actually there, so starting from a point of stability is good.
If you had said something about "eating the menu", you might have achieved maximum meme density.
BIP ---> drowned in its own jargon.
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 08:26:33 PM
QuoteI think the moment one identifies something as a 'belief' the mortar for one's BIP is hardened. There are beliefs out there that may seem comforting but then the world is defined and it becomes a 'This and not this' situation. This, i think, is what creates fear. One ends up siding with the 'good' side of a belief and shuns the 'bad'. Constant aversion builds up and one is fucked. Rather, that which is feared becomes an lesser option rather than an aversion. It seems to me that living spontaneously is more thrilling and creates more novelty than going around trying to 'fit' the world into a predefined model.
I don't know if getting caught in perpetual existential thought is good either though. If you want to change your BIP, you have to have a cell to work with. If you want to alter your maps, you have to have a map to start from. You can only change whats actually there, so starting from a point of stability is good.
I don't really think that perpetual existential thought or even changing the BIP is really what i was getting at. I'm more suggesting about watching thoughts without identifying with them therefore operating under a more spontaneous approach. I used the BIP metaphor simply because on this board it's one that most of us are familiar with (but has apparently become rather tiresome).
I'm saying that a blank piece of paper in lieu of a map is a more useful approach for me right now. I'd say that my point of stability is throwing away the map and looking at the ground under my feet. Along the way I might enjoy other models like i would enjoy sniffing various types of flowers but there's no sense of picking them from the ground.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense -- I don't want to get too caught up in metaphor.
Quote from: B_R|S on July 06, 2009, 09:03:13 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 08:26:33 PM
QuoteI think the moment one identifies something as a 'belief' the mortar for one's BIP is hardened. There are beliefs out there that may seem comforting but then the world is defined and it becomes a 'This and not this' situation. This, i think, is what creates fear. One ends up siding with the 'good' side of a belief and shuns the 'bad'. Constant aversion builds up and one is fucked. Rather, that which is feared becomes an lesser option rather than an aversion. It seems to me that living spontaneously is more thrilling and creates more novelty than going around trying to 'fit' the world into a predefined model.
I don't know if getting caught in perpetual existential thought is good either though. If you want to change your BIP, you have to have a cell to work with. If you want to alter your maps, you have to have a map to start from. You can only change whats actually there, so starting from a point of stability is good.
An excellent point. If we make maps from existing maps, then we're only making a map of a map... not a map of territory. Our map would have all the flaws and errors of the first map... plus whatever additional semantic errors we've tossed in my reworking it... it would be further separated from the real territory, rather than becoming a better map.
Copying a bad map doesn't make it better... :lulz:
I don't really think that perpetual existential thought or even changing the BIP is really what i was getting at. I'm more suggesting about watching thoughts without identifying with them therefore operating under a more spontaneous approach. I used the BIP metaphor simply because on this board it's one that most of us are familiar with (but has apparently become rather tiresome).
I'm saying that a blank piece of paper in lieu of a map is a more useful approach for me right now. I'd say that my point of stability is throwing away the map and looking at the ground under my feet. Along the way I might enjoy other models like i would enjoy sniffing various types of flowers but there's no sense of picking them from the ground.
Anyway, I hope that makes sense -- I don't want to get too caught up in metaphor.
Bump.
I'm doing a paper on Discordianism and would like to have a vague idea of belief rates from a larger pool than the 143 who voted prior. If you haven't voted, kindly do. :)
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
That's an interesting take.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 29, 2010, 09:08:32 PM
That's an interesting take.
I always thought that was a possibility if there is a god- we're just too small to account for.
Voted, btw
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
Shades of Flatland, ITT.
Voted. Avowed Pantheist/Daoist. Discordia plays into it well. Not reading 52 pages.
Quote from: Phox on December 01, 2010, 03:59:18 AM
Voted. Avowed Pantheist/Daoist. Discordia plays into it well. Not reading 52 pages.
I didn't either. Especially where the posts didn't even happen this year.
Still refusing to use nominatives and enclitics. Read too much Latin and Greek today. Thought you would enjoy that fact. :lulz:
Quote from: Phox on December 01, 2010, 04:13:22 AM
Still refusing to use nominatives and enclitics. Read too much Latin and Greek today. Thought you would enjoy that fact. :lulz:
What's an enclitic? Cuz right now I'm thinking it's :fap:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 04:14:39 AM
Quote from: Phox on December 01, 2010, 04:13:22 AM
Still refusing to use nominatives and enclitics. Read too much Latin and Greek today. Thought you would enjoy that fact. :lulz:
What's an enclitic? Cuz right now I'm thinking it's :fap:
Unaccented word, like most forms of "sum". Notice lack of "is".
Concerning religion/spiritual shit: apathetic agnostic, don't know, don't care.
Meanwhile I anticipate
:barstool:
to be more pertinent to my life.
Quote from: Phox on December 01, 2010, 04:18:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 04:14:39 AM
Quote from: Phox on December 01, 2010, 04:13:22 AM
Still refusing to use nominatives and enclitics. Read too much Latin and Greek today. Thought you would enjoy that fact. :lulz:
What's an enclitic? Cuz right now I'm thinking it's :fap:
Unaccented word, like most forms of "sum". Notice lack of "is".
Ah, lol. Do appreciate.
I'm finding this poll hard to answer.
I have found myself to agree with Asimov when he said:
QuoteI am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9
But I'm not so sure that's the case anymore, I know for a fact I can't answer this question. Believing that Eris exists is very tempting, simply if the thought of chaos being the root and Eris only being creative manifestations of that..
This question is one I've been struggling with as of late. As I am unsure I'll refrain from answering.
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
That is, give or take a few details, not to mention my mental masturbation musings flavour of the week, pretty much exactly what my belief "system" also boils down to.
Still makes me wonder if I commit a holocaust every time I empty my bowels, though.
there may be a deity... but i'll never know for sure.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 01, 2010, 11:04:28 AM
Still makes me wonder if I commit a holocaust every time I empty my bowels, though.
No, but you are deporting them :lulz:
I believe in love.
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
:mittens:
Thanks guys. :)
I'm an apatheist. Don't care if there's a deity of some kind, and I tend to think that if there was and it/they cared what we monkeys thought about it, it's go all Old Testament on us and demand our worship. But that doesn't seem to happen.
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.
You're all going to burn in hell.
HELL, DO YUO HEAR ME?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.
depends entirely on how you slice it
if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:19:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.
depends entirely on how you slice it
if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."
I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.
That's a funny image. Like someone going to Church to thank God for the prayer he answered, and then going, "that weird space thing creeps me out"
And conversely the atheist addressing it for a favor but denying that they have a religion or accept the existence of a deity.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:19:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.
depends entirely on how you slice it
if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."
I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.
not for everybody
this invisible space entity wouldn't match a lot of people's preexisting definition of god, so they'd say "nah that's not it"
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts, than to think of god as some separate, external entity.
Well I just have a hard time believing in a God who exists separately from "creation" because whatever separates God from creation would necessarily be more powerful than God; any scenario that accounts for there being a distinct "God" and a distinct "Creation" would be a reality that is itself larger and more true in essence than whatever God lived inside of it, therefore negating its God-ness.
If I am pressed to describe things like that, I tend to "believe" (if that's the right word) in a God that is not any specific entity or consciousness but rather whatever reality allows everything to exist, or whatever system of maths or other such rules that allows reality to exist the way it does. You're right that it amounts to there effectively being no god at all, except that to believe there is a proper system in place that can account for everything, is to believe there may be proper actions for you to take that is in line with the way that system wants things to behave, rather than going the "wrong" way and forcing the system to compensate for your stupidity.
It's all vanity, and I realize and accept that, it just works for me.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...
Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?
The map would literally be the territory. Why call it anything other than it is?
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:19:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on November 29, 2010, 09:06:56 PM
i accidentally explained my belief in a higher being to my friend thusly:
Friend: when did you realize you didn't believe in god?
Me: that's a long, sad story.
F: okay i won't ask then. but seriously, do you believe in anything?
M: yeah, but it's nothing like "god." that just seems silly to me.
F: okay but whatever it is, why would it allow suffering <etc etc etc>
M: Maybe because it's too big and complex to be aware of us as individuals. Maybe it is to us as we are to cells in our body, or macroeconomics is to you buying a bag of weed.
F: uhh... i think you blew my mind just now. so god is whatever everything adds up to?
M: no, whatever it adds up to is just whatever it adds up to. "god" is the fact that it adds up.
I would say this scenario would be basically the same as there not being a god at all anyway.
depends entirely on how you slice it
if we discovered that there was actually some invisible space vertebrate that is omniscient and can affect the world through his willpower, I think people would also say "That' not god. That's just some invisible space vertebrate."
I think the omniscience would be reason enough to consider it a god.
not for everybody
this invisible space entity wouldn't match a lot of people's preexisting definition of god, so they'd say "nah that's not it"
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts, than to think of god as some separate, external entity.
I was only speaking for me. I wouldn't consider that god.
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...
Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?
The map would literally be the territory. Why call it anything other than it is?
yes in part, and that's why I don't say I believe in God
the word "universe", in of itself, doesn't resonate with my idea, it's too reductionary
and saying something like "metaphorical entity consisting of the structural similarities which run from the micro to the macro" is a bit of a mouthful
I would prefer the word Cosmos, except that it has connotations of Order, and the word Chaos, except that it has connotations of Disorder. So something in between there I guess :P
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
my microreligion of the month (http://principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=Fractal_Cult) posits that one can lead a better life by observing and resonating with the universe's natural motion and recurring patterns - or God - depending on what you want to call it
EDIT TO ADD: the idea that god may "intervene" is not compatible with my worldview of the month. To me that sounds like asking a book to intervene in its own plot.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...
Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?
The map would literally be the territory. Why call it anything other than it is?
yes in part, and that's why I don't say I believe in God
the word "universe", in of itself, doesn't resonate with my idea, it's too reductionary
and saying something like "metaphorical entity consisting of the structural similarities which run from the micro to the macro" is a bit of a mouthful
I would prefer the word Cosmos, except that it has connotations of Order, and the word Chaos, except that it has connotations of Disorder. So something in between there I guess :P
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
my microreligion of the month (http://principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=Fractal_Cult) posits that one can lead a better life by observing and resonating with the universe's natural motion and recurring patterns - or God - depending on what you want to call it
EDIT TO ADD: the idea that god may "intervene" is not compatible with my worldview of the month. To me that sounds like asking a book to intervene in its own plot.
CHAMOS
LORD OF THIS AND THAT
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having
no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Maybe God's just being nice for once. I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?
If you identify "God" as "something that has lots of special powers and intervenes in events," and then "God" doesn't do that, then yeah that's the same as having no God. But if you define "God" as something that has nothing to do with intervention or super powers, then your argument doesn't really apply.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 07:00:23 PM
If you identify "God" as "something that has lots of special powers and intervenes in events," and then "God" doesn't do that, then yeah that's the same as having no God. But if you define "God" as something that has nothing to do with intervention or super powers, then your argument doesn't really apply.
Granted, but if it has nothing to do with intervention or super powers what makes it a god? By that definition I could be a god.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:59:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Maybe God's just being nice for once. I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?
Hi, Roger, how are you doing?
Just fine, thanks.
Wait. Why would a Malevolent God want to be nice?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:59:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Maybe God's just being nice for once. I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?
Hi, Roger, how are you doing?
Just fine, thanks.
Hey now, people ignore my comments all the time and I don't get my panties in a twist... I missed your comment because I assumed only one comment had been made while I was posting.
Please don't misconstrue my argument as implying that I want a god at all. I don't.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:03:47 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on December 01, 2010, 07:00:23 PM
If you identify "God" as "something that has lots of special powers and intervenes in events," and then "God" doesn't do that, then yeah that's the same as having no God. But if you define "God" as something that has nothing to do with intervention or super powers, then your argument doesn't really apply.
Granted, but if it has nothing to do with intervention or super powers what makes it a god? By that definition I could be a god.
God is the name I might use for the intelligence present in the whole shebang, the Om, the entire cosmic jazz band playing at once, moving forward through time
I would say that you are a
part of God
I think the word "systemic intelligence" would be appropriate too, or perhaps "metaphysical dynamism", though I only just learned that word
as I said, I resist using the word God because it doesn't connote the thing I'm trying to describe. But God is one of the closest words to it, and it makes it easier to communicate with Christians and other theists. I can say "Oh yeah, I believe in a higher power", except for that he's talking about the novelist and I'm talking about the novel itself.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 07:06:20 PM
Wait. Why would a Malevolent God want to be nice?
For further shock effect when you die.
Amazingly enough, the afterlife looks a whole lot like being in a hotdog bun.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:08:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:59:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Maybe God's just being nice for once. I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?
Hi, Roger, how are you doing?
Just fine, thanks.
Hey now, people ignore my comments all the time and I don't get my panties in a twist... I missed your comment because I assumed only one comment had been made while I was posting.
Please don't misconstrue my argument as implying that I want a god at all. I don't.
My panties are perfectly untwisted, Hoops. I was just having a giggle about being talked around for a page.
In any case, wanting or not wanting a God is pretty much irrelevant. God(s) exist or do not exist outside of our wants...I highly doubt the issue is up for a vote.
And many sects believe that there is a God, he doesn't intervene, and simply judges you when you die. These people are of course hopeless optimists. You see, I
know there's a God, because in 1996, I got my tongue stuck in an Epson tractor feed printer, and that doesn't happen in a purely random universe.
And I think I've spelled out my rather dismal version of the afterlife. If anyone's interested, I can repost...But, in short, there is no hell, because there's no need for it. God just eats you (unless you're unlucky enough to be an atheist), and that's that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
And many sects believe that there is a God, he doesn't intervene, and simply judges you when you die. These people are of course hopeless optimists. You see, I know there's a God, because in 1996, I got my tongue stuck in an Epson tractor feed printer, and that doesn't happen in a purely random universe.
DIVINE INTERVENTION!
was god saving you or punishing you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:08:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:04:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:59:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 06:35:25 PM
Your view could be right, but in the end, what would it matter? If a god can't or won't intervene in any manner for any reason, it might as well not exist, so sayeth Hoopla.
kind of like saying "we can't see quarks, so who cares?"
Not really, because we can tell quarks exist based on experimentation.
It would be like this: say the President of the USA was never seen, nobody knew his (or her) name, he didn't do anything, didn't change anything, didn't comment on anything, never did anything at all. What would be the difference between THAT and having no president at all? From my view, there would be no difference.
Maybe God's just being nice for once. I mean, do you really want the Old Testament God stomping around again?
Hi, Roger, how are you doing?
Just fine, thanks.
Hey now, people ignore my comments all the time and I don't get my panties in a twist... I missed your comment because I assumed only one comment had been made while I was posting.
Please don't misconstrue my argument as implying that I want a god at all. I don't.
My panties are perfectly untwisted, Hoops. I was just having a giggle about being talked around for a page.
In any case, wanting or not wanting a God is pretty much irrelevant. God(s) exist or do not exist outside of our wants...I highly doubt the issue is up for a vote.
And many sects believe that there is a God, he doesn't intervene, and simply judges you when you die. These people are of course hopeless optimists. You see, I know there's a God, because in 1996, I got my tongue stuck in an Epson tractor feed printer, and that doesn't happen in a purely random universe.
And I think I've spelled out my rather dismal version of the afterlife. If anyone's interested, I can repost...But, in short, there is no hell, because there's no need for it. God just eats you (unless you're unlucky enough to be an atheist), and that's that.
What happens if you're an atheist?
Also, I got you to admit you are wearing panties. My work here is done. Thank you and goodnight folks!
I'm a member of the same church as vex and cram. i stick it under pantheism for a label.
i'm wondering what percentage of the population holds that belief.
i can only speak for myself, but i've been impressed with the level of contentment that this view affords me...
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 07:20:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:18:45 PM
And many sects believe that there is a God, he doesn't intervene, and simply judges you when you die. These people are of course hopeless optimists. You see, I know there's a God, because in 1996, I got my tongue stuck in an Epson tractor feed printer, and that doesn't happen in a purely random universe.
DIVINE INTERVENTION!
was god saving you or punishing you?
Neither, I think. He was just poking me with a stick, and saying "Does that hurt? Does THAT hurt? TWO FOR FLINCHING!"
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:21:18 PM
What happens if you're an atheist?
Since Gods can only eat people that believe in them, atheists become these sad pathetic ghosts that shuffle to and from the office every day
forever.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:21:18 PM
Also, I got you to admit you are wearing panties. My work here is done. Thank you and goodnight folks!
I've never denied it. Uday gave them to me as a birthday gift, and I was so touched, I haven't taken them off since.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:28:06 PM
I've never denied it. Uday gave them to me as a birthday gift, and I was so touched, I haven't taken them off since.
Oh christ, I hope you thoroughly boiled them.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 07:28:06 PM
I've never denied it. Uday gave them to me as a birthday gift, and I was so touched, I haven't taken them off since.
Oh christ, I hope you thoroughly boiled them.
That would ruin the lining of nettles.
It seems to me that a lot of people listen to the craziest most illogical and impossible definition of God, given by some half crazed christian fundamentalist and then say... "See, there is no God because he couldn't be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent and allow EVIL!!!"
The problem is that this isn't an argument against God, its an argument against a half crazed christian fundamentalist's insane ravings. Now, maybe thats worth something... but they think Adam rode on a dinosaur and that it was only 6000 years ago, so they have far more problems than their definition of God.
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Shiva? Nope, he's none of those things.
Ananasi? Loki? Odin? Quetzalcoatl? Again, none of these impossible definitions are listed as part of their Godhood.
We don't know if there is a god, we don't know if he/she/it does or doesn't interact in human affairs. For all we know, god can only deal with one solar system at a time and last time he was here we hung him up on a tree... maybe he was like "Fuck you assholes, I'm gonna go hang out with the Alpha Centaurs"*
You can choose to believe there is no God. You can make the emotional jump if you want. Its a human thing to do, a choice and a choice that is no better or worse than making the emotional choice to believe that there is a God. However, if you claim its based on science, or based on evidence or based on fact... I think your emotions are confusing your logic.
* The dudes who lead the Centaur tribe in the galaxy next door.
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Riffing off of earlier comments. I liked the Asimov quote below cause it seems honest.
Quote from: geekdad on December 01, 2010, 08:56:20 AM
I'm finding this poll hard to answer.
I have found myself to agree with Asimov when he said:
QuoteI am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
-- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?
Where did that happen?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?
Where did that happen?
Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:44:36 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?
Where did that happen?
Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.
Ah, my mistake then. Carry on.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:44:36 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
How exactly did emotion come into this?
Perhaps that trying to twist science to match theology shows insecurity about beliefs and a desperate need for them to be true?
Where did that happen?
Among humans, usually on Yahoo Answers... I thought Rat's post was a generalized commentary on people.
Ah, my mistake then. Carry on.
Oh yes, my comment was not aimed at anyone in particular. Just the tendencies of hairless apes ;-)
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
Applies to everyone but Roger, who knows the Horrible Truth, of course. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on December 01, 2010, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 01, 2010, 06:32:34 PM
from where I'm sitting, It makes more sense to think of God as the sum of everything in the universe, sharing a fractal similarity to his component parts...
Wouldn't that just be a fancy whooptiemystikal synonym for "Universe"?
The map would literally be the territory. Why call it anything other than it is?
ARTISTIC LICENSE!! :argh!:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:43:57 PM
Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2
:lulz:
Quote from: Hover Cat on December 02, 2010, 02:03:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 01, 2010, 06:43:57 PM
Woe to the non-believer, for he shall spend eternity in a Richard Dawkins fan forum, yea even Veganza."
- Hyperclessians 12:2
:lulz:
This. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to
actively use that ability.
As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "
all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is
all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.
but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.
Quote from: Iron Sulfide on December 03, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.
As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.
but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.
To be fair to theology, God's inability to lie, be wrong, stop existing, create equal beings, or learn is not a limit on God but a limit on the nature of the universe: if God "lied," then what the lie he told would, by definition, be the truth - reality would instantaneously transform itself to his declaration. :P just playing devil's advocate.
Quote from: postvex™ on December 03, 2010, 10:38:36 PM
Quote from: Iron Sulfide on December 03, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.
As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.
but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.
To be fair to theology, God's inability to lie, be wrong, stop existing, create equal beings, or learn is not a limit on God but a limit on the nature of the universe: if God "lied," then what the lie he told would, by definition, be the truth - reality would instantaneously transform itself to his declaration. :P just playing devil's advocate.
Right, so whenever God wanted people to believe things that weren't true, he would send lying spirits and put them into the mouths of prophets, usually when he was pissed at the current king of Judah, and wanted the king's prophet to give him bad advice.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Omniscient, yes, technically. Omnipotent, depending on what you define potency as. More benevolent than Ouranos or Kronos. The rest of what you said is not entirely accurate. It's not clear whether the gods lived on the actual Mount Olympus (not necessarily, and also somewhat unlikely since the gods were divided into cthonic gods and Olympians which seemed to be differentiating between gods that lived on the physical earth and "sky" gods., AND Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades split creation. Zeus got the sky, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, with the earth being neutral ground.)
And Jupiter WAS omnipotent and did exist outside creation, in a sense. In Ovid, a god (probably Jupiter, though not explicitly stated to be), separated all the elements from Chaos and put them in their natural places.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Shiva? Nope, he's none of those things.
Depends on the school. Sometimes he's an aspect/avatar of a more powerful over deity that does meet those qualifications.
Quote from: Iron Sulfide on December 03, 2010, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Zeus was omniscient, in the present tense. I don't remember if he could see into the future, but as 'lord of the skies' he could see everything that was happening in the world of men. Of course, he had to actively use that ability.
As for JHVH being omni-benevolent (rabid A/Theists aside), the bible doesn't say he is "all good" from what i remember. It says quite explicitly that he is all things, and their creator. http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm
as for being omnipotent, the bible has TONNES of things that God can't do, making his a fairly limited Deity. God can't Lie, be wrong, stop existing, duplicate/create "equal" beings, learn, become "not god", force you to speak and all sorts of other biblical things and logical traps.
but things like this are bound to happen. we just can't admit that IF such a thing as God exists, we have no fucking clue what that thing might be, and have no chance to. so why bother? even Middle-of-the-Road is a bias, a human projection.
Rapid succession posts incoming, just as a heads up:
1.) Bible implies moral deity. Doesn't say he considers himself beholden to same morals. (Actually indicates opposite)
2.) Tonnes- you're not American, are you? You fooled me you sneaky fuck.
3.) This is kinda like the whole All-Powerful/Unmoveable argument
4.) From a Christian perspective, the Omnipotent God did chose to limit himself by becoming all messiah-y and dying and shit, just as a vacation, to see what it was like, whatever. If I ever became a Christian again, I would have to admit that while God knows everything, doesn't mean he understands it, nor his creation (we don't really ascribe "All-Understanding" to gods); and had to become his creation to see that he shouldn't be a pissy plaguey oh shit im gunna fuck you uppy deity.
5.) Number 4's likelihood approaches zero.
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
Quote from: Phox on December 03, 2010, 11:33:25 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Zeus wasn't omniscient, omnipotent, at all benevolent or existing outside of creation... the dude lived up on top of a mountain.
Omniscient, yes, technically. Omnipotent, depending on what you define potency as. More benevolent than Ouranos or Kronos. The rest of what you said is not entirely accurate. It's not clear whether the gods lived on the actual Mount Olympus (not necessarily, and also somewhat unlikely since the gods were divided into cthonic gods and Olympians which seemed to be differentiating between gods that lived on the physical earth and "sky" gods., AND Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades split creation. Zeus got the sky, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, with the earth being neutral ground.)
And Jupiter WAS omnipotent and did exist outside creation, in a sense. In Ovid, a god (probably Jupiter, though not explicitly stated to be), separated all the elements from Chaos and put them in their natural places.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 01, 2010, 08:25:40 PM
Shiva? Nope, he's none of those things.
Depends on the school. Sometimes he's an aspect/avatar of a more powerful over deity that does meet those qualifications.
Phox knows her shit on this topic. I can admit that her knowledge of it surpasses mine.
/end responses before new responses
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:26:27 AM
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
Blight is correct.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:27:51 AM
Phox knows her shit on this topic.
Blight is correct. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:26:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
Ah, that clears it up.
Naturally, the only rational thing to call oneself is an agnostic when it comes to ir/religious things (with optional belief qualifiers thrown on top). Cuz if God does come down and start talking to you, you might be crazy, so you'll still have that "I don't know" thing going on. Well, that and it could be some sort of other entity claiming to be God. Likewise, no one will be able to scientifically disprove the existence of a God, since its not really something that can be measured or subjected to the scientific method. :)
For those of us who like our religious faith to be extra logically valid.
:lol:
You can also use rationality to thoroughly discard theism if you treat it as a hypothesis.
Good hypotheses are based on previous observations, have clear predictions, and are actually testable.
Find me when you get that far and I'll switch to agnosticism.
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 04, 2010, 08:02:13 PM
For those of us who like our religious faith to be extra logically valid.
:lol:
You can also use rationality to thoroughly discard theism if you treat it as a hypothesis.
Good hypotheses are based on previous observations, have clear predictions, and are actually testable.
Find me when you get that far and I'll switch to agnosticism.
Roger's tongue got stuck in a printer. Twice. This is an observation. It was repeated.
Prediction: further calamities will ensue.
Hypothesis: Cacotheism. Either that or god likes to pick on Roger in particular
Test: ?
:lulz:
ISOLATE
YOUR MOTHERFUCKING
VARIABLES
(also I lol'd)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:26:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
The word gnostic is fucked up enough as it is, you don't need to keep mutilating it.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 04, 2010, 11:54:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:26:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
The word gnostic is fucked up enough as it is, you don't need to keep mutilating it.
Don't follow you. What do you mean?
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 04, 2010, 11:37:30 PM
ISOLATE
YOUR MOTHERFUCKING
VARIABLES
(also I lol'd)
The word god isn't even defined. You ask two different people of the same religion and they will probably give you widely different answers, let alone taking that to a world scale. The issue of "is there a god" doesn't mean anything.
Someone call me when they can figure out the question they are asking before I'll consider anything other then pure agnosticism.
Quote from: Faust on December 05, 2010, 12:10:01 AM
The word god isn't even defined. You ask two different people of the same religion and they will probably give you widely different answers, let alone taking that to a world scale. The issue of "is there a god" doesn't mean anything.
Someone call me when they can figure out the question they are asking before I'll consider anything other then pure agnosticism.
Maybe it's like "42", in the sense that you can never have both the Answer and the Question in the same universe? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
A 12 section wikipedia article, and in pretty much no where does it simply define Gnostic as 'the opposite of agnostic'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Either bolded option has metaphysical ramifications for the holder of that position.
Quote from: Telarus on December 05, 2010, 12:57:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Either bolded option has metaphysical ramifications for the holder of that position.
Not if you completely refute any religions and the assumption that the word god implies a deity.
Quote from: Telarus on December 05, 2010, 12:57:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
A 12 section wikipedia article, and in pretty much no where does it simply define Gnostic as 'the opposite of agnostic'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Either bolded option has metaphysical ramifications for the holder of that position.
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know". Agnostic is a negation of gnostic. Wiki isn't the end all be all of... well, anything. Gnosticism, with a capital G, is not the same as gnostic, with a small g. Agnosticism or Gnosticism as a belief theory, is not what Blight was referring to.
Gnostic has referred to those belief systems for about 1800 years now.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on December 05, 2010, 04:31:09 AM
Gnostic has referred to those belief systems for about 1800 years now.
Big "G" Gnostic, yes. But that was not what Blight was talking about.
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 01:03:54 AM
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know".
Agnostic is a negation of gnostic.
Only when you're speaking Greek. Otherwise English words--derived from Greek or not--mean exactly what the English dictionary says they mean. Specifically this means that in English, not every Greek-derived word with the prefix "a-" always means the exact negation of the same word without it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 01:03:54 AM
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know".
Agnostic is a negation of gnostic.
Only when you're speaking Greek. Otherwise English words--derived from Greek or not--mean exactly what the English dictionary says they mean. Specifically this means that in English, not every Greek-derived word with the prefix "a-" always means the exact negation of the same word without it.
Linguistically speaking, there are many things a word could mean whether or not the English dictionary says they do.
It's moot because, Blight wasn't referring to Gnosticism as a belief system. English or not, he was using gnostic as "knowing" and agnostic as "not knowing". I don't see what all the debate is.
The universe is void of supernatural entities, and conducted completely based in particle interactions.
This universe was born of an expansion event 13.5 billion years ago, after which stars and galaxies collapsed and became thermonuclear reactors.
The Earth and surrounding solar system was born of red giant and supergiant star explosions that yielded elements significant to life's development on this planet, 4 billion years ago.
The tendency of variation to exist has resulted in selection against some lifeforms, resulting in the separation of lineages and the transmutation of species.
Humans exist as one lineage within the Hominidae, a group of Primates (Mammalia) which separated from their sister taxon (Pan) approximately 4-6 million years ago. As such they share common characters with all Hominids, including sociality and group hierarchy, opposable thumbs, tool usage, self recognition, and the ability for bipedalism.
Most human beliefs are small notions.
Quote from: Faust on December 05, 2010, 01:01:19 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 05, 2010, 12:57:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Either bolded option has metaphysical ramifications for the holder of that position.
Not if you completely refute any religions and the assumption that the word god implies a deity.
Hey, we've got this MYSTERY TRUTH. We cannot ask what it is, and we cannot define it, and we cannot prove it to have causal potency, but IF we are right, and you reject our doctrine, you will suffer unimaginably for infinite time. Your gamble. :)
Quote from: Sigmatic on December 05, 2010, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 05, 2010, 01:01:19 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 05, 2010, 12:57:00 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Either bolded option has metaphysical ramifications for the holder of that position.
Not if you completely refute any religions and the assumption that the word god implies a deity.
Hey, we've got this MYSTERY TRUTH. We cannot ask what it is, and we cannot define it, and we cannot prove it to have causal potency, but IF we are right, and you reject our doctrine, you will suffer unimaginably for infinite time. Your gamble. :)
Only from one small religion that only represents 30 ish percent of the world. Agnosticism isn't small enough to tie to Christianity or any one religion or stance on life.
Quote from: ϗ on December 05, 2010, 05:14:11 PM
The universe is void of supernatural entities, and conducted completely based in particle interactions.
This universe was born of an expansion event 13.5 billion years ago, after which stars and galaxies collapsed and became thermonuclear reactors.
The Earth and surrounding solar system was born of red giant and supergiant star explosions that yielded elements significant to life's development on this planet, 4 billion years ago.
The tendency of variation to exist has resulted in selection against some lifeforms, resulting in the separation of lineages and the transmutation of species.
Humans exist as one lineage within the Hominidae, a group of Primates (Mammalia) which separated from their sister taxon (Pan) approximately 4-6 million years ago. As such they share common characters with all Hominids, including sociality and group hierarchy, opposable thumbs, tool usage, self recognition, and the ability for bipedalism.
Most human beliefs are small notions.
Ah, yes, but Who caused that expansion event? If you say you don't know, then the King James Bible on my shelf is literally true and 169% historically accurate, by default.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 01:23:11 PMindeed. ScienceTheology is looking both upinwards and downoutwaqrds, and apparently both the large-scale and the small-scale limits push at their orders of magnitude at a similar pace. Because the scales are logarithmic and the progress isn't, this is probably not nearly as unlikely as it seems. Much less unlikely than us just happening to exist right in the middle of scales of magnitude taken as absolute.
In fact, there is nothing we can say about it because we don't know if the smallest scale we currently know is in fact the smallest scale there is. Same about the largest scales. So the fact that we're right in the middle says a lot more about the limits of scientifictheological progress than about the actual scale structure of the universeGod.
Edited for Sci->Theological shift.
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 05:08:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 01:03:54 AM
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know".
Agnostic is a negation of gnostic.
Only when you're speaking Greek. Otherwise English words--derived from Greek or not--mean exactly what the English dictionary says they mean. Specifically this means that in English, not every Greek-derived word with the prefix "a-" always means the exact negation of the same word without it.
Linguistically speaking, there are many things a word could mean whether or not the English dictionary says they do.
It's moot because, Blight wasn't referring to Gnosticism as a belief system. English or not, he was using gnostic as "knowing" and agnostic as "not knowing". I don't see what all the debate is.
Precisely. I'm not talking about a specific sect of Christianity. I figured it would have been fairly obvious when I used the terms atheist and theist, since they cover a lot of bases.
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
No, because the agnostic is an epistemological question. It doesn't state what you believe, but what you feel we can know.
I consider it impossible to know for certain whether there is a god or not, but in my heart I believe there isn't on. Therefor, I am an agnostic atheist.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 04, 2010, 02:26:27 AM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
Combined together it creates a different connotation.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't know, but I don't believe in X"
An agnostic theist says, "I don't know, but I believe in X"
A gnostic atheist says, "I know for a fact X doesn't exist, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
A gnostic theist says, "I know for a fact X exists, even though I can't prove it scientifically. My opinion is truth."
I consider atheist and agnostic very easy words to put together. The first part says, "I don't know but..." and the second part is, "I'm inclined to believe [insert belief]"
Everyone is either an agnostic or a gnostic, regardless of what it applies to.
Yes, I should have read farther, you answered better than me.
Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on December 06, 2010, 02:47:39 AM
Ah, yes, but Who caused that expansion event? If you say you don't know, then the King James Bible on my shelf is literally true and 169% historically accurate, by default.
Quote from: ϗ on December 05, 2010, 05:14:11 PM
Most human beliefs are small notions.
Quote from: HOOPLA on December 06, 2010, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
No, because the agnostic is an epistemological question. It doesn't state what you believe, but what you feel we can know.
I consider it impossible to know for certain whether there is a god or not, but in my heart I believe there isn't on. Therefor, I am an agnostic atheist.
I'd have the same inclination, but I don't go with gut feeling, so a pure epistemological approach will have to do for me. Its not really an issue that impacts my daily life anyway.
Quote from: HOOPLA on December 06, 2010, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: Faust on December 03, 2010, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 01, 2010, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 09:00:50 PM
I think to elaborate on Rat's point, everyone is by necessity an agnostic. Some are agnostic Christians, agnostic Muslims, agnostic atheists. No one knows definite about whether or not exists. They either believe or don't believe in something, but since there is no evidence one way or the other, claiming that science backs up your position whether theistic or atheistic is dishonest.
Did I get that right?
I agree with that. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
I consider the definition of those two words to be very different and difficult to put together. Using the above I would say an agnostic atheist is just an agnostic.
No, because the agnostic is an epistemological question. It doesn't state what you believe, but what you feel we can know.
I consider it impossible to know for certain whether there is a god or not, but in my heart I believe there isn't on. Therefor, I am an agnostic atheist.
In my heart... I have no idea if there is or isn't. I've talked to deities, I've felt them act in my life... and when I don't believe in them, they disappear.
Maybe that means its in my head. Maybe that means that they only bother talking to the people that want to talk to them... maybe it means I should go get mental help...
:lulz:
If they disappear when you don't believe them, there's a good chance your map doesn't match the territory.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2010, 03:37:17 PM
and when I don't believe in them, they disappear.
Your gods are either politicians or advertising slogans. They only persist if enough people buy into them.
Wasn't it Philip K Dick who said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't disappear."?
And, on that note, wasn't it Liza 'with a Z' Minnelli who said "Reality is something you rise above."?
Ok, I know the second quote has nothing to do with anything, I just like that quote.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 05, 2010, 05:08:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 01:03:54 AM
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know".
Agnostic is a negation of gnostic.
Only when you're speaking Greek. Otherwise English words--derived from Greek or not--mean exactly what the English dictionary says they mean. Specifically this means that in English, not every Greek-derived word with the prefix "a-" always means the exact negation of the same word without it.
Linguistically speaking, there are many things a word could mean whether or not the English dictionary says they do.
It's moot because, Blight wasn't referring to Gnosticism as a belief system. English or not, he was using gnostic as "knowing" and agnostic as "not knowing". I don't see what all the debate is.
Fuck you both. I'm a Gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 10, 2010, 08:24:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 05, 2010, 05:08:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 05, 2010, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on December 05, 2010, 01:03:54 AM
Gnostic is derived from a Greek word meaning "to know".
Agnostic is a negation of gnostic.
Only when you're speaking Greek. Otherwise English words--derived from Greek or not--mean exactly what the English dictionary says they mean. Specifically this means that in English, not every Greek-derived word with the prefix "a-" always means the exact negation of the same word without it.
Linguistically speaking, there are many things a word could mean whether or not the English dictionary says they do.
It's moot because, Blight wasn't referring to Gnosticism as a belief system. English or not, he was using gnostic as "knowing" and agnostic as "not knowing". I don't see what all the debate is.
Fuck you both. I'm a Gnostic agnostic.
GODS? WHO NEEDS 'EM?
Militant extremist agnostic. Taken into every aspect of life.
:lulz:
I believe in it all. I'll take it all in these days. The way I see it, not true? -- not my problem.
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 04:43:39 AM
:lulz:
I believe in it all. I'll take it all in these days. The way I see it, not true? -- not my problem.
Without digressing into stupidity on my part, I actually think this is a pretty good route. One of the things about Chaos Magic (and no, lets not make this about Chaos Magic) is that it calls for switching your belief system from time to time. I think that's a pretty good idea, for different reasons. It helps you see things from a different perspective if you really put yourself into the mindset. You know, if you can pull it off.
Blight,
-not going to follow certain rules from certain religions as a rule. And certainly can't guarantee that he won't fart while bowing to Mecca.
believe? don't make me laugh. take your believe and shove it up your fnord. choose your fundamentals for your character then up to them. nothing is true. everything is permitted. seek or wander, the choice is yours.
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on December 11, 2010, 05:24:58 AM
believe? don't make me laugh. take your believe and shove it up your fnord. choose your fundamentals for your character then up to them. nothing is true. everything is permitted. seek or wander, the choice is yours.
Hush. you're in the season of bureaucracy. Or whatever. You will be compartmentalized. Resistance is futile.
Blight
Apologizes for his intense like of TNG
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 05:06:28 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 04:43:39 AM
:lulz:
I believe in it all. I'll take it all in these days. The way I see it, not true? -- not my problem.
Without digressing into stupidity on my part, I actually think this is a pretty good route. One of the things about Chaos Magic (and no, lets not make this about Chaos Magic) is that it calls for switching your belief system from time to time. I think that's a pretty good idea, for different reasons. It helps you see things from a different perspective if you really put yourself into the mindset. You know, if you can pull it off.
Blight,
-not going to follow certain rules from certain religions as a rule. And certainly can't guarantee that he won't fart while bowing to Mecca.
I think (or at least have convinced myself) that it brings me more spontaneity. More spontaneity, less worries. Plus it allows me a place to appreciate other models in general. I've gotten to a point that I'm really just tired of pushing belief against belief. And it emphasizes the relativity of most situations.
It also allows me to meet certain fundamentalist family members on a level that, if we were BOTH stuck in our belief roles we'd never have the opportunity to meet as people.
Everybody has the answer and if they wanna have it, they can keep it.
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 06:16:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 05:06:28 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 04:43:39 AM
:lulz:
I believe in it all. I'll take it all in these days. The way I see it, not true? -- not my problem.
Without digressing into stupidity on my part, I actually think this is a pretty good route. One of the things about Chaos Magic (and no, lets not make this about Chaos Magic) is that it calls for switching your belief system from time to time. I think that's a pretty good idea, for different reasons. It helps you see things from a different perspective if you really put yourself into the mindset. You know, if you can pull it off.
Blight,
-not going to follow certain rules from certain religions as a rule. And certainly can't guarantee that he won't fart while bowing to Mecca.
I think (or at least have convinced myself) that it brings me more spontaneity. More spontaneity, less worries. Plus it allows me a place to appreciate other models in general. I've gotten to a point that I'm really just tired of pushing belief against belief. And it emphasizes the relativity of most situations.
It also allows me to meet certain fundamentalist family members on a level that, if we were BOTH stuck in our belief roles we'd never have the opportunity to meet as people.
Everybody has the answer and if they wanna have it, they can keep it.
I was raised Catholic. While I was young, I was convinced that I would always be Catholic (because it was the truth goddammit!). When I turned 16 I ditched that for Paganism, and THEN took my Confirmation, for the happiness of my family. When I'm 35 I may be an atheist (or maybe even a Satanist for teh lulz and teh nekkid lady altars and teh blasphemy [parts 2 and 3 are most appealing]). But, for now, I'm still a Pagan, since that's what I want to be. And so what? Doesn't matter what I end up believing, my journey taught me that some things are not so wrong.
Maybe I won't be Discordian either. But that won't matter even, as long as I keep my wits about me, along with my sense of humor and my righteous horrormirth.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 06:26:16 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 06:16:12 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 05:06:28 AM
Quote from: Burns on December 11, 2010, 04:43:39 AM
:lulz:
I believe in it all. I'll take it all in these days. The way I see it, not true? -- not my problem.
Without digressing into stupidity on my part, I actually think this is a pretty good route. One of the things about Chaos Magic (and no, lets not make this about Chaos Magic) is that it calls for switching your belief system from time to time. I think that's a pretty good idea, for different reasons. It helps you see things from a different perspective if you really put yourself into the mindset. You know, if you can pull it off.
Blight,
-not going to follow certain rules from certain religions as a rule. And certainly can't guarantee that he won't fart while bowing to Mecca.
I think (or at least have convinced myself) that it brings me more spontaneity. More spontaneity, less worries. Plus it allows me a place to appreciate other models in general. I've gotten to a point that I'm really just tired of pushing belief against belief. And it emphasizes the relativity of most situations.
It also allows me to meet certain fundamentalist family members on a level that, if we were BOTH stuck in our belief roles we'd never have the opportunity to meet as people.
Everybody has the answer and if they wanna have it, they can keep it.
I was raised Catholic. While I was young, I was convinced that I would always be Catholic (because it was the truth goddammit!). When I turned 16 I ditched that for Paganism, and THEN took my Confirmation, for the happiness of my family. When I'm 35 I may be an atheist (or maybe even a Satanist for teh lulz and teh nekkid lady altars and teh blasphemy [parts 2 and 3 are most appealing]). But, for now, I'm still a Pagan, since that's what I want to be. And so what? Doesn't matter what I end up believing, my journey taught me that some things are not so wrong.
Maybe I won't be Discordian either. But that won't matter even, as long as I keep my wits about me, along with my sense of humor and my righteous horrormirth.
I think it's about finding wherever there happens to be a comfortable place. Maybe stir it all up a bit, maybe not. It's MY trip. It's your trip. And here we are. That's all there is to it, really. Otherwise things get too complicated and I just get too caught in trying to reinforce the environment to fit my standards.
Too much work.
I've 'tried on' belief systems before (through various methods) but I found the best way is to just ride through what makes the most sense--and if it begins to wear thin, just listen inside for the next step.
Nothing to add, nothing to detract. Not leaving you hanging either.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 06:56:29 AM
Nothing to add, nothing to detract. Not leaving you hanging either.
Where the bullshit ends and non-bullshit begins, that is what I REALLY believe matters :winner:
Quote from: LuciferX on December 11, 2010, 09:24:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 11, 2010, 06:56:29 AM
Nothing to add, nothing to detract. Not leaving you hanging either.
Where the bullshit ends and non-bullshit begins, that is what I REALLY believe matters :winner:
We already have enough people here that don't make sense. Either start making coherent statements or stick with lurking.
that makes sense
Quote from: Able on December 11, 2010, 08:24:53 PM
that makes sense
Knee jerk reaction I guess. It happens.
I liked it
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on December 11, 2010, 05:24:58 AM
believe? don't make me laugh. take your believe and shove it up your fnord. choose your fundamentals for your character then up to them. nothing is true. everything is permitted. seek or wander, the choice is yours.
Okay.
Who turned on the Crazy Retard Magnet?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 13, 2010, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on December 11, 2010, 05:24:58 AM
believe? don't make me laugh. take your believe and shove it up your fnord. choose your fundamentals for your character then up to them. nothing is true. everything is permitted. seek or wander, the choice is yours.
Okay.
Who turned on the Crazy Retard Magnet?
:oops:
I thought it was the thermostat. It's freezing in here.
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa261/broodwitch/bighead-google-eyes.gif)
All gods are made up. However, just because something is made up doesn't mean it's not real. I have a whole pantheon of gods I made up myself, and they're a hell of a lot better at answering prayers than YHVH ever was, back in my fuddleheaded Christian days.
hell yeah dude! I'm definitely on that page too. Do Christians get their prayers answered? I do. I never have any uncertainty about my God's will. I just ask him. He lives upstairs from me.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49858017/The-Prophets-of-the-Main-Way
Sounds interesting. I'll give it a proper read sometime when I'm not half asleep.
Yes, in fact Christian prayers are often answered. I've seen too much to doubt that their god is real, however I've also found that he's actually a bit of a douche, so we're not on speaking terms any more. Eris is a lot more my style, but I never pray to her either. Only an fool would go and ask a trickster goddess for anything.
I believe in everything and/or nothing, depending on my mood/who i'm talking to/what's going on.
Reality is like the internet. You get a multiple choice option when it comes to 'truth'.
Lately i've realized I'm probably vaguely atheist in a very not atheist way. I may assume all the gods exist, but i certainly don't believe their existence makes them worthy of worship.
Quote from: DiscordianKitty on March 03, 2011, 09:19:35 PM
You get a multiple choice option when it comes to 'truth'.
Balls.
Quote from: DiscordianKitty on March 03, 2011, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 03, 2011, 09:20:59 PM
Balls.
'Strue
Isn't. Reality isn't subjective. Your perception of it is.
You can have all the opinions in the world about a train, but none of them mean shit if you're still on the tracks when it arrives.
Yeah, but this guy on this other forum says the complete opposite, so I get to choose to go with his theory.
Quote from: DiscordianKitty on March 03, 2011, 09:52:26 PM
Yeah, but this guy on this other forum says the complete opposite, so I get to choose to go with his theory.
Right. Off you go, then.
TGRR,
Doesn't argue with lemmings.
Quote from: DiscordianKitty on March 03, 2011, 09:52:26 PM
Yeah, but this guy on this other forum says the complete opposite, so I get to choose to go with his theory.
Some guy on that other forum is trying to get you run over by a train.
Well I believe I'm going to head on home and be a pain in the ass to my children. :evil:
Quote from: Khara on March 03, 2011, 10:32:36 PM
Well I believe I'm going to head on home and be a pain in the ass to my children. :evil:
Some days this is all I have to look forward to. :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on March 03, 2011, 10:31:54 PM
Some guy on that other forum is trying to get you run over by a train.
:horrormirth:
Coming back to this question, I would have to say "as little as possible".
I like that answer.
I hate this thread, however, because every time I read it I'm reminded that people who might otherwise make valuable contributions to the world (or at least generate some lulz) are still hung up on superstitious nonsense and imaginary friends with superpowers.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 04, 2011, 06:40:38 AM
I like that answer.
I hate this thread, however, because every time I read it I'm reminded that people who might otherwise make valuable contributions to the world (or at least generate some lulz) are still hung up on superstitious nonsense and imaginary friends with superpowers.
Some people need susperstitious nonsense and imaginary friends with superpowers to get through the day. Not everybody can get through your average shitty week without having somebody not actually close enough to give them the bitch-slapping they deserve when they blame every bloody thing going wrong in their lives on them instead of sucking it up and dealing with it, themselves. Falling back on begging their imaginary friends for some sort of change rather than, you know, getting off their asses and working for that change themselves, gives them the, "well, I TRIED, but (insert name of imaginary friend of choice, here) said "NO." escuse to soothe their consciences.
Some people grow out of it. Some people don't. I find hope in the fact that most people realize the fat man in the red suit is a fairy tale, and hope the lesson gets applied further.
If here IS a "higher power," however you want to define it, He/She/It has better things to do than to listen to every damn person on the planet whine about every little thing.
I believe in coffee.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 04, 2011, 06:40:38 AM
I hate this thread, however, because every time I read it I'm reminded that people who might otherwise make valuable contributions to the world (or at least generate some lulz) are still hung up on superstitious nonsense and imaginary friends with superpowers.
I hate this thread because I intended the OP as an honest question, not as a platform to shit on people whose beliefs you don't agree with. c'est la vie I guess.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 03:15:32 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 04, 2011, 06:40:38 AM
I hate this thread, however, because every time I read it I'm reminded that people who might otherwise make valuable contributions to the world (or at least generate some lulz) are still hung up on superstitious nonsense and imaginary friends with superpowers.
I hate this thread because I intended the OP as an honest question, not as a platform to shit on people whose beliefs you don't agree with. c'est la vie I guess.
Go fuck yourself, Cram. If you intended it as an honest question, you should expect honest answers even if they're not the answers YOU want to hear. If people don't want their beliefs shit on then maybe they should think about having less-stupid beliefs. It's not as though just HAVING a belief makes it valid. It's like every time you start a discussion and it takes a turn you're uncomfortable with you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" or start making vauge accusations of disrespectfulness (as though being respectful were something this board is known for). Try disassociating your questions from your own ego once in a while; it may help your intellectual credibility.
yeah like, I'm not really surprised or pissed off about it,
nor your reaction.
honestly - I just feel a little less resonance with this place every time I log in
there's a certain range of conversations appropriate to this board
and there's a certain type of person who belongs here at PD
and as I explore the geography of different cells, I feel less and less like that kind of person.
*shrug*
Over the last months I've been posting more sparsely, less invested, it's just sort of an exhaustion with the negativity. I used to think I could at least make the board more fun/interesting for me, but I don't think I can, it only leads to drama, so I just spend my day elsewhere. No biggie.
Cram, I know you were looking for honest answers to the question posed.
But do you
really think that...
Quote from: DiscordianKitty on March 03, 2011, 09:19:35 PM
I believe in everything and/or nothing, depending on my mood/who i'm talking to/what's going on.
Reality is like the internet. You get a multiple choice option when it comes to 'truth'.
Lately i've realized I'm probably vaguely atheist in a very not atheist way. I may assume all the gods exist, but i certainly don't believe their existence makes them worthy of worship.
...is an "honest" answer, or is it simply the latest top coat of spackle used to cover that gaping void of unknowability that lies in the heart of every truthseeker?
You can't blame a person for calling out bullshit when they smell it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
You can't blame a person for calling out bullshit when they smell it.
This.
Also, threads concerning belief are 169% guaranteed to turn into a horrible cesspit of gonads & strife, no matter what board you post them on.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 04:19:01 PM
yeah like, I'm not really surprised or pissed off about it,
nor your reaction.
honestly - I just feel a little less resonance with this place every time I log in
there's a certain range of conversations appropriate to this board
and there's a certain type of person who belongs here at PD
and as I explore the geography of different cells, I feel less and less like that kind of person.
*shrug*
Over the last months I've been posting more sparsely, less invested, it's just sort of an exhaustion with the negativity. I used to think I could at least make the board more fun/interesting for me, but I don't think I can, it only leads to drama, so I just spend my day elsewhere. No biggie.
Y'know, I like you, dude. So I'm'a apologize for the part in my last post where I told you to go fuck yourself. That was out of line. But if you can handle some honest criticism, it seems as though over the last year or so you've been trying to jam that bliss-ninny hat down over your ears and it
just doesn't fit. I don't know why you'd even want it to. I'm pretty sure that one of these spags stole it out of the coatcheck room over at GaiaOnline and I seriously doubt they even so much as de-loused it first.
You have to expect a great deal of friction when you gather a bunch of creative spags in one place. Reasonable allowances have to be made for the fact that not everyone has the same viewpoints and motivations, and everyone is articulate enough to argue their point and passionate enough to do so.
One person's negativity is another person's realism.
One person's positive outlook is another person's bliss-ninnyism.
I don't expect Cram to start focusing on the bones that his city is built on, but on the other hand, I do not expect to be told off for being "negative". I am not in charge of Cram, nor is he my conscience. If I wanted an environment where everyone agrees on everything upon pain of exile or being ostracized, I'd go to Mysticwicks as a serious poster.
That being said, Discordian Kitten is a piece of shit on the scale of Eldora, and I for one will not apologize for shitting on her here or anywhere else, as that is precisely what she does whenever she feels she can get a mod to shut down anyone that disagrees with her.
And if that means I'm shitting on her beliefs (or rather her stated non-beliefs), then mea culpa. Guilty as sin...But I'd do it again.
You will pardon me (I hope) for extending the "friction" metaphor, and saying that perhaps the problem is that the "lubricants" we've been using (fluff threads, open bar, etc.) aren't enough to ameliorate the mechanical stresses (furious agreement/bitter disagreement/our usual unbelievable bullshit).
I sense that actually having met some of each other has caused us to be less hasty with harshness, and that's good. But the community could use an oil change. As it were.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:20:16 PM
You have to expect a great deal of friction when you gather a bunch of creative spags in one place. Reasonable allowances have to be made for the fact that not everyone has the same viewpoints and motivations, and everyone is articulate enough to argue their point and passionate enough to do so.
One person's negativity is another person's realism.
One person's positive outlook is another person's bliss-ninnyism.
I don't expect Cram to start focusing on the bones that his city is built on, but on the other hand, I do not expect to be told off for being "negative". I am not in charge of Cram, nor is he my conscience. If I wanted an environment where everyone agrees on everything upon pain of exile or being ostracized, I'd go to Mysticwicks as a serious poster.
That being said, Discordian Kitten is a piece of shit on the scale of Eldora, and I for one will not apologize for shitting on her here or anywhere else, as that is precisely what she does whenever she feels she can get a mod to shut down anyone that disagrees with her.
And if that means I'm shitting on her beliefs (or rather her stated non-beliefs), then mea culpa. Guilty as sin...But I'd do it again.
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call
negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:34:08 PM
You will pardon me (I hope) for extending the "friction" metaphor, and saying that perhaps the problem is that the "lubricants" we've been using (fluff threads, open bar, etc.) aren't enough to ameliorate the mechanical stresses (furious agreement/bitter disagreement/our usual unbelievable bullshit).
I sense that actually having met some of each other has caused us to be less hasty with harshness, and that's good. But the community could use an oil change. As it were.
Horseshit. That friction is where all the amazing comes from.
Discordianism - or even life itself in the 21st century - is no place for putting on an act of being Concordian. It's about
giving a fuck, and since we all obviously don't believe the exact same thing, we're going to argue like hell. The day everyone gets along on PD is the day that this place becomes worthless.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:38:26 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:34:08 PM
You will pardon me (I hope) for extending the "friction" metaphor, and saying that perhaps the problem is that the "lubricants" we've been using (fluff threads, open bar, etc.) aren't enough to ameliorate the mechanical stresses (furious agreement/bitter disagreement/our usual unbelievable bullshit).
I sense that actually having met some of each other has caused us to be less hasty with harshness, and that's good. But the community could use an oil change. As it were.
Horseshit. That friction is where all the amazing comes from.
Discordianism - or even life itself in the 21st century - is no place for putting on an act of being Concordian. It's about giving a fuck, and since we all obviously don't believe the exact same thing, we're going to argue like hell. The day everyone gets along on PD is the day that this place becomes worthless.
I'm not saying we shouldn't argue. FUCK no. I'm saying we need to be able to argue like hell and not get sick of each other for it.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:45:03 PM
I'm not saying we shouldn't argue. FUCK no. I'm saying we need to be able to argue like hell and not get sick of each other for it.
The only people I get sick of are the ones who don't argue. And I don't even get sick of them...I just get sick of the "I'm above all this/I don't have time for this" attitude towards the very thing that drives half of the really awesome shit that gets done around here.
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
I see.
It has nothing to do with any of the actual content we've been producing, or any of the IRL meetups that have occurred, or anything else. Just mere addiction.
I take it back, my anus was typing. I think I just tend to see myself as addicted to this place, so I project.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:54:13 PM
I take it back, my anus was typing.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Everyone should memorize this line. I know I plan to.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:54:13 PM
I take it back, my anus was typing.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Everyone should memorize this line. I know I plan to.
:spittake:
fuck me sideways that's funny....
I think I got that awful mental picture from you, a long time ago.
"Prehensile anus". AUGH. :lulz:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:57:24 PM
I think I got that awful mental picture from you, a long time ago.
"Prehensile anus". AUGH. :lulz:
I remember that. I had to stun it with a mallet to get it to behave.
Handle yuor shit, Rog. If I see that thing stealing gulps of my coffee again, so help me. :argh!:
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 06:00:40 PM
Handle yuor shit, Rog. If I see that thing stealing gulps of my coffee again, so help me. :argh!:
It doesn't "steal". It
deposits.
OMGZ!!!! Someone painted their Black Iron Prison with TieDye and built a little shrine to subjective reality in the corner!!!! FOR FUCKS SAKE THIS IS DISCORDIA AND WE GOT TO TELL THEM THAT THEY ARE WRONG AND FULL OF SHIT!!!!!!!
Why in the hell are people so serious about defining whats OK for everyone else to think, enjoy or believe (based on whatever the definition of believe means for that person)?
"Oh WE CAN"T COMMUNICATE IF WE DON"T ALL UNDERSTAND THE WORDS!!!"
Bullshit. If you have the reading comprehension of a 10 year old, you can figure out what people are saying and likely even figure out what they mean. However, its far more IMPORTANT FOR DISCORDIA to tell people that they are full of shit! ITS FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO PULL AN EXTREME METAPHOR FROM MY ASS AND TELL SOMEONE THEY ARE WRONG!!!!
HA! That is FAIL of the highest order.
So what if you like realism? It's about as real as everything else in your damned Prison Cell.
So what if someone prefers optimism? It's their cell what the fuck business is it of yours?
"Think For Yourself, Schmuck!" (unless it disagrees with me, then FUCK YOU YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT!!!).
Modify Your BiP (As long as you modify it in a way APPROVED BY US!!! if YOU GO MODIFYING IT SOME OTHER WAY... FUCK YOU YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT!!!)
The bones of the city are no more or less real than the meat, muscles, hair and eyelashes of the city. If you choose to stare at an X-ray, bully for you. If someone else decides not to, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU?!
I refute the idea that Discordia is gonna change the world, or that Discordians are gonna change the world.
I refute the bullshit that somehow we have to focus, dwell or otherwise take a mypoic vision of Horrormirth or somehow we deluding ourselves.
We're ALL FUCKING DELUDING OURSELVES ALL THE GODDESS* DAMNED TIME! ITS THE FUCKING POINT!
And no this isn't about being a really real Discordian. It's about being a hypocritical douchebag and trying to hide it behind Discordian ideas.
OR FUCKING KILL SOMETHING.
Ok, rant over; Ratatosk feels better...
:lulz:
* YES, I said Goddess its for the fucking LULZ - Shut The Fuck Up about it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 06:01:43 PM
And no this isn't about being a really real Discordian. It's about being a hypocritical douchebag and trying to hide it behind Discordian ideas.
Right, then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:03:10 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 06:01:43 PM
And no this isn't about being a really real Discordian. It's about being a hypocritical douchebag and trying to hide it behind Discordian ideas.
Right, then.
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag? I'm so fucking lost. I thought this was just a typical hissy fit at the end of a
LONG and I mean
REALLY LONG thread on something we all knew no one could agree upon from the get go.
I'm confused....
I believe in peace, love and unicorns. The goddess help me I love faeries.....
The problem, Rat, is that in real life when people decorate their cells in a particularly vigorous manner it tends to spill over into all the cells around them.
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag?
Me, judging from the rest of the post.
Apparently, stating that there is more than one acceptable viewpoint makes you a douchebag. And if he's gonna CALL me a douchebag for that reason, I guess I may as well BE a douchebag, right?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag?
Me, judging from the rest of the post.
Apparently, stating that there is more than one acceptable viewpoint makes you a douchebag. And if he's gonna CALL me a douchebag for that reason, I guess I may as well BE a douchebag, right?
I think that is, in fact, your given right....
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
No, but those who have pessimism as their default, to the point of an all pervading gloom, perhaps.
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag?
Me, judging from the rest of the post.
Apparently, stating that there is more than one acceptable viewpoint makes you a douchebag. And if he's gonna CALL me a douchebag for that reason, I guess I may as well BE a douchebag, right?
I think that is, in fact, your given right....
Not according to Rat. According to him, I should break into song upon being called a douchebag. :lulz:
Anyway, I'm done with it. Rat's opinion on any given subject matter is now of slightly less value to me than that of, say, Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart.
TGRR,
No time for being told what I "really meant" or what I am required to believe.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
No, but those who have pessimism as their default, to the point of an all pervading gloom, perhaps.
Can you give me an example?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
No, but those who have pessimism as their default, to the point of an all pervading gloom, perhaps.
Can you give me an example?
Well I suppose the worst case example I can think of I've seen is in Or kill me, where someone puts a lot of effort into their piece and then it gets a one liner dismissal to the effect of "no that's not right", generally in a meaner tone. I've even seen it done in response to some of your rants in the past.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag?
Me, judging from the rest of the post.
Apparently, stating that there is more than one acceptable viewpoint makes you a douchebag. And if he's gonna CALL me a douchebag for that reason, I guess I may as well BE a douchebag, right?
How do you possibly do that with any sort of honesty?
I don't give a flying fuck how many viewpoints people have. I'm all for you being pessimistic and playing with bones if its what you want to do. However, YOU just shat all over someone for having a different viewpoint than you. THAT IS THE FUCKING HYPOCRISY I AM TALKING ABOUT.
"But, but my view is valid... THEIR VIEW IS SHITTY AND THEY ARE LIKE ELDORA and PAT ROBERTSON... because they can't accept my acceptable viewpoint..."
Sauce for the goose... Rev Gander.
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "
negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
No, but those who have pessimism as their default, to the point of an all pervading gloom, perhaps.
Can you give me an example?
Well I suppose the worst case example I can think of I've seen is in Or kill me, where someone puts a lot of effort into their piece and then it gets a one liner dismissal to the effect of "no that's not right", generally in a meaner tone. I've even seen it done in response to some of your rants in the past.
That sounds more like "being a prick" or - depending on the circumstances - "swinging a barstool".
I thought we were talking about pessimism.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:13:38 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:09:04 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Damn, who is he calling a douchbag?
Me, judging from the rest of the post.
Apparently, stating that there is more than one acceptable viewpoint makes you a douchebag. And if he's gonna CALL me a douchebag for that reason, I guess I may as well BE a douchebag, right?
I think that is, in fact, your given right....
Not according to Rat. According to him, I should break into song upon being called a douchebag. :lulz:
Anyway, I'm done with it. Rat's opinion on any given subject matter is now of slightly less value to me than that of, say, Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart.
TGRR,
No time for being told what I "really meant" or what I am required to believe.
Well I admit I'm glad you've chosen not to break into song. My virgin ears and all that... :wink:
Oh Jimmy Swaggart, I think he never got over the fact that the world loved his pedophilia-incestual tendencied cousin more than him. That's a big burr to carry up one's ass for a few decades yanno?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:21:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 04, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
That being said there is the other side of it, in the past I've seen negativity used because its easy or self feeding, it becomes a meme and we should be careful to call negativity for negativity sake bullshit just as quickly.
Okay. Define "
negativity", then.
I don't define negativity as an unrealistic pessimistic view based on very little information. As you said one mans negativity is anthers realism, that is where i would tow the line, pessimism without cause or fact = negativity in my view
So we should call people out for not having optimism as their default attitude?
Am I reading you correctly? <--- Serious question.
No, but those who have pessimism as their default, to the point of an all pervading gloom, perhaps.
Can you give me an example?
Well I suppose the worst case example I can think of I've seen is in Or kill me, where someone puts a lot of effort into their piece and then it gets a one liner dismissal to the effect of "no that's not right", generally in a meaner tone. I've even seen it done in response to some of your rants in the past.
That sounds more like "being a prick" or - depending on the circumstances - "swinging a barstool".
I thought we were talking about pessimism.
I consider that pessimism. Writing off any possibility without basis, the same goes for any hypothetical and can be carried across the board. I'm not talking about hostility here, other people have problems with that.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 06:21:18 PM
How do you possibly do that with any sort of honesty?
Easy. I made a statement that Cram's viewpoint and the more pessimistic sort of viewpoint are equally valid.
You shat on that idea, or at least spattered it with shit while trying to shit on me, by deciding "what I really meant".
You are intellectually dishonest to the point of hilarity.
Your posts will in the future be read only for the unintentional humor value, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:22:44 PM
Oh Jimmy Swaggart, I think he never got over the fact that the world loved his pedophilia-incestual tendencied cousin more than him. That's a big burr to carry up one's ass for a few decades yanno?
Not what I was talking about. I was referring to the insistance that only his view is valid, not Jimmy's other issues.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
Oh, well then. I hate to think I drove Enki away.
Later.
well I know you don't like him, but I've grown quite fond of the spag.
ETA: I am not accusing any one person of driving people away, it's the board's tone
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:25:39 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 06:21:18 PM
How do you possibly do that with any sort of honesty?
Easy. I made a statement that Cram's viewpoint and the more pessimistic sort of viewpoint are equally valid.
You shat on that idea, or at least spattered it with shit while trying to shit on me, by deciding "what I really meant".
You are intellectually dishonest to the point of hilarity.
Your posts will in the future be read only for the unintentional humor value, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Intellectual dishonesty?! FROM YOU? You stupid self centered jerk... I don't GIVE A GODDAMNED SHIT if you and Cram disagree on valid viewpoints. I AM FUCKING TIRED of people claiming "I have a right to my viewpoint', not three pages after shitting all over someone else viewpoint.
let's start here: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18194.msg1013538#msg1013538
and read down a bit, then guess at what 'hypocrisy' I was talking about.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
well I know you don't like him, but I've grown quite fond of the spag.
Okay. Tell him to come back. Tell Discordian Kitten to come back (ho ho!).
I won't be in the way.
You're going to need to find a new bad guy to blame, though.
TGRR,
Utterly sick of being your Goddamn scapegoat.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 06:31:06 PM
Intellectual dishonesty?! FROM YOU? You stupid self centered jerk... I don't GIVE A GODDAMNED SHIT if you and Cram disagree on valid viewpoints. I AM FUCKING TIRED of people claiming "I have a right to my viewpoint', not three pages after shitting all over someone else viewpoint.
Enjoy having Discordian Kitten around. Check her out at MW.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:22:44 PM
Oh Jimmy Swaggart, I think he never got over the fact that the world loved his pedophilia-incestual tendencied cousin more than him. That's a big burr to carry up one's ass for a few decades yanno?
Not what I was talking about. I was referring to the insistance that only his view is valid, not Jimmy's other issues.
:lulz: Yeah, I figured that, but that's what
I think of every time I see his name....
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
well I know you don't like him, but I've grown quite fond of the spag.
Okay. Tell him to come back. Tell Discordian Kitten to come back (ho ho!).
I won't be in the way.
You're going to need to find a new bad guy to blame, though.
TGRR,
Utterly sick of being your Goddamn scapegoat.
You know, self pity is teh suck as a defense mechanism. Why is it that you seem willing to dole out criticism but rarely if ever notice how some might apply to you? Can you honestly read through the past several pages and see NO hypocrisy at all?! Have you honestly become that self deulded? I can't imagine that's true.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 06:32:26 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
well I know you don't like him, but I've grown quite fond of the spag.
Okay. Tell him to come back. Tell Discordian Kitten to come back (ho ho!).
I won't be in the way.
You're going to need to find a new bad guy to blame, though.
TGRR,
Utterly sick of being your Goddamn scapegoat.
I edited my post, you might have missed this:
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:30:29 PM
ETA: I am not accusing any one person of driving people away, it's the board's tone
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
But you did so now you may as well lay it all out on the line....
Quote
Discordianism - or even life itself in the 21st century - is no place for putting on an act of being Concordian. It's about giving a fuck, and since we all obviously don't believe the exact same thing, we're going to argue like hell. The day everyone gets along on PD is the day that this place becomes worthless.
I'd like everyone to re-read this, and spend five honest minutes thinking about it. Seriously. Set a timer for five minutes, and then sit and think about this until the alarm goes off.
Yeah, I erased the attribution tag on the quote, because who said it isn't as important about what was said.
For the record, I consider myself an Optimistic Absurdist: I think life is what meaning you ascribe to it, but things generally turn out all right, as long as you're paying attention. The fact that I live in a world of Sleeping Robots means that my immediate environment is fundamentally against me, and that Bad Things lurk around the corner. But describing the world as it appears is not the same as describing my experience of the world.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 06:47:02 PM
Quote
Discordianism - or even life itself in the 21st century - is no place for putting on an act of being Concordian. It's about giving a fuck, and since we all obviously don't believe the exact same thing, we're going to argue like hell. The day everyone gets along on PD is the day that this place becomes worthless.
I'd like everyone to re-read this, and spend five honest minutes thinking about it. Seriously. Set a timer for five minutes, and then sit and think about this until the alarm goes off.
Sorry, the veins in my head wouldn't last that long. I have once again been shat on in favor of a noob, this time a manipulative fucking Eldora clone from MW, who stalked Khara here for the purpose of causing us the same sort of fucking trouble she caused there.
My value has been announced, loud and fucking clear, once again. Just like it is about once every three fucking months.
I feel like a world-class idiot for putting so much effort into Horrorology, and everything else I've wasted my time and effort on here.
I don't think anybody is saying you are responsible for a bunch of us not posting here
you are the one making this into an issue about you
'In favor of a n00b' not, called out cause I was being hypocritical...
Wow Roger, your own intellectual dishonesty in this instance may need examined.
To be clear, I don't give a fuck who the n00b is. I was talking to you about you.
So, here we go again. And here I go again.
Hey Roger, is there room under that bus for both of us?
Assholes.
Fuck :sad:
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
:argh!:
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 07:51:18 PM
Fuck :sad:
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
:argh!:
Yeah. :sad:
goddamn :(
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
Page 4 brings the first "joke" answer. Someone answers "Cthulhu". At this point, the second part of the thread is over. The door has been opened to un-honest answers (ex. "I'm an ass worshipper").
And yet, the thread continues to develop. Around page 8, we move from talking about our own beliefs into talking about each others'. As respectful as can be expected, of course.
The disagreements start around page 11. At this point, the entire thread has shifted, and the original point of the thread has died. Thread evolution, it happens.
Page 15 – enter the Pinealists. Most people try to keep the intellectual content going, but it's fading fast. There's really no recovery now. If you lament the death of the thread, look there. After that point, it's mostly people posting whatever esoteric knowledge they picked up about religion and philosophy, whether or not it pertains to the conversation, what little of it there is left.
Page 42 – MAGICK! And all the usual crap that springs from that.
Page 48 is where we decided to conduct our Magickal science experiment with BabylonHurev.
Page 60 (which is recent history) brought Pinealism back to the fore, to which the expected reaction occurred.
Conclusion: Please note that the MAJORITY of the thread behaved mostly how Cram wanted it to. In fact, some of the people who might get finger-pointed as the "negative" element here made honest, bold, and well-thought-out posts regarding their beliefs. It was only when dis-honest and or "silly" responses began to appear that the hostility began. In fact, you might say that the anger in this thread doesn't come from people attacking other people's beliefs, it came from people attacking other's obvious insincerity regarding this thread.
So, yeah.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Conclusion: Please note that the MAJORITY of the thread behaved mostly how Cram wanted it to. In fact, some of the people who might get finger-pointed as the "negative" element here made honest, bold, and well-thought-out posts regarding their beliefs. It was only when dis-honest and or "silly" responses began to appear that the hostility began. In fact, you might say that the anger in this thread doesn't come from people attacking other people's beliefs, it came from people attacking other's obvious insincerity regarding this thread.
So, yeah.
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
I thought this was just a typical hissy fit at the end of a LONG and I mean REALLY LONG thread on something we all knew no one could agree upon from the get go.
Yeah :|
I, for one, made a smartass answer from the getgo, but my smartass answer is what I actually believe. I know I contributed more to the downfall of this thread but I mean damn..... This is another topic much along the lines of drug topics. It's going to stir up shit.
My issue came when.....
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
Which was a crappy thing to post as where it was posted and such implied that it was beacuse of individuals, not board vibes.
And so it went from there.
I, for one, if I have run someone off, well I'm sorry. You see I've tried really hard to run
Twatburger someone off and he never stays gone, so I presumed I was a failure at the ability to do so.
So there you go.
I made a smart ass reply on page 60 something. I was only trying to get everyone off each others back and onto mine. Didn't work :( i failz
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
What were you focused on at the end of it???
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
What were you focused on at the end of it???
That's "different", for reasons that do not concern you or I. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 08:41:20 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
What were you focused on at the end of it???
That's "different", for reasons that do not concern you or I. :lulz:
Oh is this one of those cosmic things?
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:42:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 08:41:20 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
What were you focused on at the end of it???
That's "different", for reasons that do not concern you or I. :lulz:
Oh is this one of those cosmic things?
No, it's one of those "MY, THAT'S A MIGHTY BIG MOTE IN YOUR EYE. WATCH OUT FOR THE BEAM STICKING OUT OF MY HEAD, AND I'LL JUST DIG RIGHT INTO YOUR EYEBALL THERE AND 'HELP YOU OUT'. HOLD STILL!" things.
:lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 08:46:51 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:42:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 08:41:20 PM
Quote from: Khara on March 04, 2011, 08:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 04, 2011, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 04, 2011, 08:07:53 PM
Guess what? I just read the entire thread!
So, Page 1 shows Rat not taking the poll "seriously", even after Cram shows intent to make this an honest poll. Both ECH and Cain call out Rat on page 2, and both show honest intent.
At the end of page 2, Cram reveals the purpose of the poll—to find out if "irreligious" is really the best term to use, or if it's just dressed up Agnosticism/Atheism. At this point, I would consider the first part of the thread over: The question is no longer out of context.
Rat continues to defend his nit-picking stance for several pages, in amongst additional honest answers from various posters.
I fully accept that I was an asshole focused on unnecessary pedantry at the beginning of this thread.
What were you focused on at the end of it???
That's "different", for reasons that do not concern you or I. :lulz:
Oh is this one of those cosmic things?
No, it's one of those "MY, THAT'S A MIGHTY BIG MOTE IN YOUR EYE. WATCH OUT FOR THE BEAM STICKING OUT OF MY HEAD, AND I'LL JUST DIG RIGHT INTO YOUR EYEBALL THERE AND 'HELP YOU OUT'. HOLD STILL!" things.
:lol:
Ah, I would have seen it but I moved out of my glass house..... :lulz:
Also, I can't control whether or not anyone likes what I have to say, or what people "copying me" have to say. I can't control whether or not anyone leaves the board because I - or someone just like me - do not meet their standards of Discordianism.
Obviously, I CAN control how I act, and what I say...But I'm not going to start shitting unicorns and pink monkeys for the sake of people who feel that only one point of view is valid, or feel that everyone on the internet needs to be Emily fucking Post.
Bear in mind that *I* am not naming names. I have no idea how accurate Cram's list is, or indeed if anyone has left due to me - or people like me - saying mean things in front of impressionable children and hippies. I will not speak for anyone, because they can speak for themselves.
However, it occurs to me that many of the same people he mentioned are on IRC these days, where they...Idle. AFK. HELLO, ANYBODY HOME? Which leads me to believe that perhaps the reason some of them left is that they are, well, DOING OTHER THINGS. For one example, I refuse to believe that Burns left because he is weeping purple piss over the inhumanity here. Burns has callouses on his eyeballs from dealing with ESF, and nothing here could possibly faze him. Again, I could be wrong, he can speak for himself if he chooses to do so.
And as for Enki, well, let's just say that I wasn't the only one constantly pissed off by his consuming need to be wrong on just about every subject, to the extent of crashing every thread he posted on.
Next, I am utterly disinterested in whether or not this pisses anyone off. Go fuck yourselves, if you're more worried about the size of the audience as opposed to the signal/noise ratio. I don't know if he still feels this way, but I'm going to paraphrase ECH and say that I'd rather have 20 users posting quality content than 500 Discordian Kittens spouting pinealisms.
I blame myself for this mess, for a few reasons. I forgot why I was writing (thinking it was a waste of time, which implies audience), I gave a momentary shit about Rat's opinion (a mistake I will not repeat, I assure you), and I posted in Principia Discussion.
So I tell you what. I'm going to stay out of Principia Discussion, and leave it to the touchie-feely types that puke blood whenever anyone says anything bad, and we'll let SCIENCE do it's thing. Think of it as the "shit in one hand, let a unicorn shit in the other, and see which one fills up fastest" experiment.
Or Fuck Me in the Eye Socket.
WOW. What the shit is this? ECH and LMNO are on the correct motorcycle.
Cram, I see your point. But, we are who we are. If some people feel like this is no longer the place for them, well that's their call. Sorry to see them go, but hey, this place does have a certain atmosphere. It is not for everyone.
Roger, in all honesty, Rat does bring up a point against you. Not that he isn't being a bit of a dick about it, but there is a certain level of hypocrisy to your responses to Discordian Kitty or whatever and how you were acting to Cram. Do I give a fuck? Not really. Everyone's a hypocrite about something. Except me. But I digress.
Aww... fuck it. You know what, you're all being whiny fucking babies. Get the fuck over it.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
Frutopia? That besmirches the solemn dignity of my name :argh!:
Well, I was hoping to stay out of this thread, and it would have passed me by altogether if it weren't for Uncle Charley.. but since my private thoughts have been used-by-proxy it would be cowardly not to say something. I can't deal with drama. Hell, I can't even troll for more than a little while before all the pretend drama gets to me. I used to think I
could deal with it, but then I noticed a strong correlation between drama and my not being as patient a husband and father as I want to be. That sucks, but it's not a hard choice to make.
So now I avoid drama,
by avoiding drama. Okay, I went over that a little quick, so let me back up. If there's some drama in a thread and my involvement isn't going to magically cure it -
i.e. all of the fucking time - I just... avoid it. No, no, I've rushed through that again haven't I? Right so, I noticed that pretty much all of the fights and drama I got myself involved in here was... when I was busy complaining about the drama.
I am the people I was warning you about!
Two separate issues - Horrorology and Negativity. Yeah, it pisses me off sometimes when a pet optimistic narrative gets crushed, but I don't see that as much a function of Negativity, as much as I do the pure strength of the writing that's been happening with The Spider Project and Horrorology. A forum has bottlenecks and hubs through which concepts and ideas flow. Can you have two strong opposing concepts in the same forum? Maybe. Can you develop them simultaneously?
Negativity. Meh. Forums flow. I'll complain about it to anyone who'll listen when it gets bad. That's
how they flow. I don't like dog-piling, but sometimes it is necessary. But the reason I don't think I ever complained about Roger manning the Intro thread battlements is because without such efforts I think PD.com would be quickly overrun by a pineal horde. Stabbity indeed. It's a valued service, and I believe I said as much in our chat, Cram.
It's a complex, sensitive issue, which sprays more shit than a diarrhoetic drama llama, and exactly the sort I've been trying to avoid.
I only want to say one thing more - I haven't spoken to any other of The Named, but please don't assume anything about them based on this.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 04, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Not that he isn't being a bit of a dick about it, but there is a certain level of hypocrisy to your responses to Discordian Kitty
Not sorry. I believe I've already stated my reasons for going after the fuckwit from MW, and I'm not going into it again.
You may begin fucking my eyesocket at will. :lulz:
Do me in the left one, though, my right one is my firing eye.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on March 04, 2011, 10:58:56 PM
But the reason I don't think I ever complained about Roger manning the Intro thread battlements is because without such efforts I think PD.com would be quickly overrun by a pineal horde. Stabbity indeed. It's a valued service, and I believe I said as much in our chat, Cram.
And it's fun for the whole family!
I gotta say, though, it's just like old times, being the subject of chat discusssions.
:digtbk:
TGRR,
Cheap, but not as cheap as your haircuts, opies!
You forgot the sekret forums.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:13:09 PM
I gotta say, though, it's just like old times, being the subject of chat discusssions.
:digtbk:
TGRR,
Cheap, but not as cheap as your haircuts, opies!
Worst mistake since I went to Cut Rate Cuts. :(
Quote from: Sister Fracture on March 04, 2011, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:13:09 PM
I gotta say, though, it's just like old times, being the subject of chat discusssions.
:digtbk:
TGRR,
Cheap, but not as cheap as your haircuts, opies!
Worst mistake since I went to Cut Rate Cuts. :(
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
Quote from: Sister Fracture on March 04, 2011, 11:20:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:13:09 PM
I gotta say, though, it's just like old times, being the subject of chat discusssions.
:digtbk:
TGRR,
Cheap, but not as cheap as your haircuts, opies!
Worst mistake since I went to Cut Rate Cuts. :(
:lulz:
:D
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:09:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 04, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Not that he isn't being a bit of a dick about it, but there is a certain level of hypocrisy to your responses to Discordian Kitty
Not sorry. I believe I've already stated my reasons for going after the fuckwit from MW, and I'm not going into it again.
You may begin fucking my eyesocket at will. :lulz:
Do me in the left one, though, my right one is my firing eye.
See this:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 04, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Do I give a fuck? Not really.
That ought to cover my feelings on, well, pretty much this whole debacle. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 05, 2011, 02:49:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 04, 2011, 11:09:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 04, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Not that he isn't being a bit of a dick about it, but there is a certain level of hypocrisy to your responses to Discordian Kitty
Not sorry. I believe I've already stated my reasons for going after the fuckwit from MW, and I'm not going into it again.
You may begin fucking my eyesocket at will. :lulz:
Do me in the left one, though, my right one is my firing eye.
See this:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 04, 2011, 10:21:26 PM
Do I give a fuck? Not really.
That ought to cover my feelings on, well, pretty much this whole debacle. :lulz:
S'ok. Your feelings on the matter have been noted.
TGRR,
Horrible hypocritical bastard.
What the fuck is this shit?
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
OK, I tried really hard to bow out of this thread but I am compelled to address the quoted post.
I don't know if this is intentional or not, Cram, but your list of "named names" is being presented in a very disingenuous manner. I'm IRL friends with some of those people and talk to many of the others on IRC, and I've had discussions about this very subject with those people. With one or two exceptions, everyone on your list that's talked to me about it has said that their lack of posting here has more to do with them having either "outgrown" PD or just not having the time or energy to deal with it. Many people seem to take the stance that if they can't find time to contribute then there's no need for them to be here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect that stance. I have, even,
specifically asked a few of those people if they were staying away because of "Roger and his crowd", and only one person responded affirmatively to that specific line of inquiry.
I'm not going to name names, but I will point out that the person in question seems to have utterly failed in letting "Roger's crowd" drive them off the forums. People come and go from this place, and that's never going to change. This is a VERY dynamic place, and it's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea all of the time, and that's OK. Trying to use that fact as some sort of evidence that certain people are "driving posters away" or some crap like that is
not OK.
And for the record, since Roger brought it up, I am still very much in favor of quality over quantity in terms of posters and content here.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 05, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
OK, I tried really hard to bow out of this thread but I am compelled to address the quoted post.
I don't know if this is intentional or not, Cram, but your list of "named names" is being presented in a very disingenuous manner. I'm IRL friends with some of those people and talk to many of the others on IRC, and I've had discussions about this very subject with those people. With one or two exceptions, everyone on your list that's talked to me about it has said that their lack of posting here has more to do with them having either "outgrown" PD or just not having the time or energy to deal with it. Many people seem to take the stance that if they can't find time to contribute then there's no need for them to be here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect that stance. I have, even, specifically asked a few of those people if they were staying away because of "Roger and his crowd", and only one person responded affirmatively to that specific line of inquiry. I'm not going to name names, but I will point out that the person in question seems to have utterly failed in letting "Roger's crowd" drive them off the forums. People come and go from this place, and that's never going to change. This is a VERY dynamic place, and it's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea all of the time, and that's OK. Trying to use that fact as some sort of evidence that certain people are "driving posters away" or some crap like that is not OK.
And for the record, since Roger brought it up, I am still very much in favor of quality over quantity in terms of posters and content here.
:motorcycle:
... eh. ok that was out of context.
I have hardly read any PD the past two weeks so I'm catching up, that's why.
However, I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that PD is pretty much exactly the same place as I temporarily left it :) :)
Not just the drama above (which I don't really feel like getting involved in), as well as before I found this thread (someone had to point me at it, even), there's been ZILLIONS OF COOL THINGS posted as well.
So if you don't mind, I'm gonna go read back on those.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 05, 2011, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on March 04, 2011, 06:26:31 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 04, 2011, 05:51:12 PM
Well, a lot of people do get sick of it. There haven't been as many ridiculously long flounces as of late, but I attribute that to mere addiction.
there actually have been a lot of silent flounces, or just decreased posting
I've talked to a lot of people over the last few months who feel like this place's vibe is not conclusive to the kinds of discussions/community they want to participate in. I am going to get myself in trouble for naming names, but off the top of my head - eve, burns, fred, badge, kel, enki, rumckle, net, cainad, captain fruitopia, ratatosk... definitely more.. All of them have mentioned to me how the negativity and shitting on others discourages them from posting. Or how they got frustrated that a potentially interesting thread was reduced to telling people why they're wrong or stupid. I also don't feel like it's something I can do anything about, talking about it tends to make people defensive, and frankly I'm already sorry for bringing it up.
OK, I tried really hard to bow out of this thread but I am compelled to address the quoted post.
I don't know if this is intentional or not, Cram, but your list of "named names" is being presented in a very disingenuous manner. I'm IRL friends with some of those people and talk to many of the others on IRC, and I've had discussions about this very subject with those people. With one or two exceptions, everyone on your list that's talked to me about it has said that their lack of posting here has more to do with them having either "outgrown" PD or just not having the time or energy to deal with it. Many people seem to take the stance that if they can't find time to contribute then there's no need for them to be here. I don't necessarily agree, but I respect that stance. I have, even, specifically asked a few of those people if they were staying away because of "Roger and his crowd", and only one person responded affirmatively to that specific line of inquiry. I'm not going to name names, but I will point out that the person in question seems to have utterly failed in letting "Roger's crowd" drive them off the forums. People come and go from this place, and that's never going to change. This is a VERY dynamic place, and it's certainly not going to be everyone's cup of tea all of the time, and that's OK. Trying to use that fact as some sort of evidence that certain people are "driving posters away" or some crap like that is not OK.
And for the record, since Roger brought it up, I am still very much in favor of quality over quantity in terms of posters and content here.
A voice of reason....
:mittens:
Mostly Balls, though.
Some people are quite fond of balls.
Goddammit. What the hell happened here? :argh!:
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:20:13 AM
Goddammit. What the hell happened here? :argh!:
What is Discordia?
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:21:37 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:20:13 AM
Goddammit. What the hell happened here? :argh!:
What is Discordia?
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:30:22 AM
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Which is essentially the majority of Rat's posting that I have seen, and about half of what Cram posts here.
Cue further shitstorming.
PD: Leave no shoulder chip unturned.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 06, 2011, 05:24:52 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:21:37 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:20:13 AM
Goddammit. What the hell happened here? :argh!:
What is Discordia?
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
I'm lost again... Hell I need to change my name.... Lost and confused in the fucking midwest... HELP!!
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:33:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:30:22 AM
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Which is essentially the majority of Rat's posting that I have seen, and about half of what Cram posts here.
Cue further shitstorming.
:| You think that's funny, I think it's unnecessary fuel on the fire, as well as insulting to my friends. And kind of ironic, seeing that, as I pause to think about what
you come to post here, only thing that comes to mind is acronym-riddled whining. Which is okay, I don't understand it, but it probably sucks a lot and you can complain about it all you like.
It just doesn't really make you someone that ought to be judging people's posting quality in terms of whining and being-a-dick.
Also, this has nothing to do with you.
So what's with the "cue further shitstorming"?
Do you enjoy fueling the fire? Getting friends to turn on eachother? Tearing this community apart? Poking and stirring shit in arguments that don't concern you? Just tell me if that's what you come to do here, maybe I'll understand you better.
Here we go again.
:lol: @ "tearing this community apart"
LEAVE CRAM AND RAT ALONE!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!!!
\
(http://earsucker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chris-crocker.jpg)
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 06, 2011, 08:16:27 PM
:lol: @ "tearing this community apart"
(http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr126/TGRR/James-Dean-1955-Rebel-Without-a-Cause_021.jpg)
Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. "Cue further shitstorming" indeed. :lulz:
In the interest of NOT creating further unnecessary shitstorming (because not ALL shitstorms are unnecessary), I want to make it clear to Trip that the Chris Crocker post was just good-natured ball-busting.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 06, 2011, 08:16:27 PM
:lol: @ "tearing this community apart"
Eh yeah. That was indeed a bit overly dramatic.
The point I was trying to make is that I was mostly really wondering why he said what he said.
And then I felt I wasn't getting that point across very well, so I slapped some more options to the end of it, and now, looking back at what I wrote that kind of made it worse.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:33:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:30:22 AM
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Which is essentially the majority of Rat's posting that I have seen, and about half of what Cram posts here.
Cue further shitstorming.
I just lost quite a bit of respect for you.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 06, 2011, 07:59:42 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:33:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:30:22 AM
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Which is essentially the majority of Rat's posting that I have seen, and about half of what Cram posts here.
Cue further shitstorming.
:| You think that's funny, I think it's unnecessary fuel on the fire, as well as insulting to my friends. And kind of ironic, seeing that, as I pause to think about what you come to post here, only thing that comes to mind is acronym-riddled whining. Which is okay, I don't understand it, but it probably sucks a lot and you can complain about it all you like.
It just doesn't really make you someone that ought to be judging people's posting quality in terms of whining and being-a-dick.
Also, this has nothing to do with you.
So what's with the "cue further shitstorming"?
Do you enjoy fueling the fire? Getting friends to turn on eachother? Tearing this community apart? Poking and stirring shit in arguments that don't concern you? Just tell me if that's what you come to do here, maybe I'll understand you better.
Oh I am ever so fucking sorry that I dared to say that Rat is an ass, and approximately half of the stuff that Cram posts is him complaining about Roger driving people away.
Cuz, Rat is an asshole that gets his retard on when ever someone points out the stupidity of magic, and Cram gets into huge bitch fits and blames Roger for driving people away.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 07, 2011, 12:54:24 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 06, 2011, 05:33:01 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 06, 2011, 05:30:22 AM
Quote
A blatant failure as a social model.
We can't cooperate on anything, and each iteration gets worse, until you eventually have people plotting against each other, either online or IRL. No shit.
Plotting? All I saw Rat being a dick and Cram claiming that negativity here had driven people away.
Which is essentially the majority of Rat's posting that I have seen, and about half of what Cram posts here.
Cue further shitstorming.
I just lost quite a bit of respect for you.
I'm fine with that.
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
I was there I saw it....
I was hiding in the closet.......
:fap:
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on March 07, 2011, 05:45:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
I was there I saw it.... I was hiding in the closet.......
:oops:
It.. uh.. it's not what it looks like... I was using a stunt double... uh... it... I... RAGE! :crankey:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:48:49 AM
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on March 07, 2011, 05:45:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
I was there I saw it.... I was hiding in the closet.......
:oops:
It.. uh.. it's not what it looks like... I was using a stunt double... uh... it... I... RAGE! :crankey:
I am still curious what all the bottles and spiral candles were for.....
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:48:49 AM
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on March 07, 2011, 05:45:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
I was there I saw it.... I was hiding in the closet.......
:oops:
It.. uh.. it's not what it looks like... I was using a stunt double... uh... it... I... RAGE! :crankey:
Don't lie.
It was her and me AND her stunt double.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 05:52:49 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:48:49 AM
Quote from: *GrumpButt* on March 07, 2011, 05:45:34 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 07, 2011, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 07, 2011, 05:06:40 AM
For the record I'd like to point out that Crams a filthy communist, Rat's a Nazi, Tggr would rather get his balls violated than be blown up by sand nags, ECH is a really real discordian, Faust is a Poptart alt and I saw Canis with the devil.
Yeah, when were Coyote and I in the same room?
I was there I saw it.... I was hiding in the closet.......
:oops:
It.. uh.. it's not what it looks like... I was using a stunt double... uh... it... I... RAGE! :crankey:
Don't lie.
It was her and me AND her stunt double.
Quiet you. :crankey:
:fap: :fap: :fap:
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
Indeed.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Too much fluffing, not enough content.
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
This. And quit acting like there's some sort of point behind it.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
You're hot when you're angry.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:31:53 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
:kingmeh:
I'm going to ignore Phox and Coyote from now on. Something about 50% of their posts calling the other half black, or something.
Plus I said I wanted to stay out of this argument a few pages ago and well, when you don't succeed at first ...
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
:mittens:
Thought that's what AT and PD were for. :?
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 07, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:31:53 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
:kingmeh:
I'm going to ignore Phox and Coyote from now on. Something about 50% of their posts calling the other half black, or something.
Plus I said I wanted to stay out of this argument a few pages ago and well, when you don't succeed at first ...
Thank you for that enlightening response. I shall now go back to disregarding 99% of what you post, along with EOC.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 07, 2011, 08:02:14 PM
Thought that's what AT and PD were for. :?
No no, Roger. None of us are AT PD. We ARE PD.
This bullshit in the thread. The ugliness we've all been in with each other, with n00bs. The butthurt and the condescension and the ego. The horrible shit I've said to a bunch of you fuckers in some cases. That's us.
And I'm totally fucking cool with it. We don't need to create some regimen by which we're civil to each other, or a suggestion on how to best accomodate new posters. If you intentionalize a community like that you end up with failure, because as much as we felate ourselves for being a better breed of asshole, we are flawed, flawed motherfuckers.
Losing our shit because the word "crazy" is incidentally used in a n00b's post, losing our shit over someone else losing their shit over a n00b's post, it's not because we're dickheads (which we are), it's because we're goddamn people. People clash, and the better kind of people we claim to be can accept that disagreement with our own world view doesn't mean wrong (so long as it's, you know, based in reality) and move the fuck on.
I mentioned it in another thread. There's a ton of smart people here. There are a ton of well reasoned, or well education, or what have you kinds of people. That's not what we need. The best thing a person can bring to the table at PD is perspective. And that's the valuable thing about having like this, with outlooks as disparate as yours, Rat's, mine.
That's what I REALLY believe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 07, 2011, 08:02:14 PM
Thought that's what AT and PD were for. :?
No, AT and PD are for those with the right values to show off that they have the right values and set up situations where they can cry when other people don't share their values.
Quote from: aedh on March 07, 2011, 08:48:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 07, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:31:53 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
:kingmeh:
I'm going to ignore Phox and Coyote from now on. Something about 50% of their posts calling the other half black, or something.
Plus I said I wanted to stay out of this argument a few pages ago and well, when you don't succeed at first ...
Thank you for that enlightening response. I shall now go back to disregarding 99% of what you post, along with EOC.
I thought you were leaving? :?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 07, 2011, 08:51:05 PM
Quote from: aedh on March 07, 2011, 08:48:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 07, 2011, 02:08:03 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:31:53 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans eques on March 07, 2011, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 06:20:25 AM
50% of posts being bitching would be a fucking GODSEND compared to this 169% STUPID FUCKING FLIRTATION.
uuuuuuuuugh
Mission accomplished.
:kingmeh:
I'm going to ignore Phox and Coyote from now on. Something about 50% of their posts calling the other half black, or something.
Plus I said I wanted to stay out of this argument a few pages ago and well, when you don't succeed at first ...
Thank you for that enlightening response. I shall now go back to disregarding 99% of what you post, along with EOC.
I thought you were leaving? :?
I was. I changed my fucking mind. Decided I should go back to being a dick to people when they piss me off on an internet forum.
Man, I wish someone had taken my bet. That would have been a record.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on March 07, 2011, 08:49:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 07, 2011, 08:02:14 PM
Thought that's what AT and PD were for. :?
No no, Roger. None of us are AT PD. We ARE PD.
This bullshit in the thread. The ugliness we've all been in with each other, with n00bs. The butthurt and the condescension and the ego. The horrible shit I've said to a bunch of you fuckers in some cases. That's us.
And I'm totally fucking cool with it. We don't need to create some regimen by which we're civil to each other, or a suggestion on how to best accomodate new posters. If you intentionalize a community like that you end up with failure, because as much as we felate ourselves for being a better breed of asshole, we are flawed, flawed motherfuckers.
Losing our shit because the word "crazy" is incidentally used in a n00b's post, losing our shit over someone else losing their shit over a n00b's post, it's not because we're dickheads (which we are), it's because we're goddamn people. People clash, and the better kind of people we claim to be can accept that disagreement with our own world view doesn't mean wrong (so long as it's, you know, based in reality) and move the fuck on.
I mentioned it in another thread. There's a ton of smart people here. There are a ton of well reasoned, or well education, or what have you kinds of people. That's not what we need. The best thing a person can bring to the table at PD is perspective. And that's the valuable thing about having like this, with outlooks as disparate as yours, Rat's, mine.
That's what I REALLY believe.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the gnashing sound of me BITING MY OWN ARM OFF AT THE SHOULDER.
I'm here to drop my fucking pance and roll around in the post-American century, and I'll do it by my fucking self if I have to. If PD shut down tomorrow, I'd STILL FUCK WITH PEOPLE, because the ONLY way to get a coherent, non-programmed response out of primates seems to be to DRIVE THEM COMPLETELY AROUND THE BEND.
Beep Beep, motherfuckers? Who is driving car?
I'm here to be win friends and influence people...
Just like that cassette stuck in my car tells me I should... :|
QuoteNo no, Roger. None of us are AT PD. We ARE PD.
This bullshit in the thread. The ugliness we've all been in with each other, with n00bs. The butthurt and the condescension and the ego. The horrible shit I've said to a bunch of you fuckers in some cases. That's us.
And I'm totally fucking cool with it. We don't need to create some regimen by which we're civil to each other, or a suggestion on how to best accomodate new posters. If you intentionalize a community like that you end up with failure, because as much as we felate ourselves for being a better breed of asshole, we are flawed, flawed motherfuckers.
Losing our shit because the word "crazy" is incidentally used in a n00b's post, losing our shit over someone else losing their shit over a n00b's post, it's not because we're dickheads (which we are), it's because we're goddamn people. People clash, and the better kind of people we claim to be can accept that disagreement with our own world view doesn't mean wrong (so long as it's, you know, based in reality) and move the fuck on.
I mentioned it in another thread. There's a ton of smart people here. There are a ton of well reasoned, or well education, or what have you kinds of people. That's not what we need. The best thing a person can bring to the table at PD is perspective. And that's the valuable thing about having like this, with outlooks as disparate as yours, Rat's, mine.
That's what I REALLY believe.
:mittens:
AND YA DON'T STOP!
:hammer:
Quote from: Khara on March 07, 2011, 09:44:12 PM
I'm here to be win friends and influence people...
Just like that cassette stuck in my car tells me I should... :|
A screwdriver will solve that.
LOLWAT. Do you guys really take yourselves that seriously? :lol:
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 08, 2011, 02:34:02 AM
LOLWAT. Do you guys really take yourselves that seriously? :lol:
Butthurt is an infinite resource.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
(http://randomgifs.com/images/penn.gif)
I was an ass in this thread and deserved what shit I got.
That is all.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
uh I like to be happy when I can and stuff I guess
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
/puts hand up
Neo-Matrixism.
Quote from: Khara on March 09, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
Not the god
of anything, just God. Capital G.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 01:29:51 AM
Quote from: Khara on March 09, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
Not the god of anything, just God. Capital G.
YHWH is a semitic war god. :ninja:
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 01:29:51 AM
Quote from: Khara on March 09, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
Not the god of anything, just God. Capital G.
Any particular reason WHY you think that? Or are you just saying shit that you think will come off sounding outlandish and/or mysteriously deep?
Wait which one is god Neo or Keaneo
hmm humm hmm
AND THEN ECH REMEMBERED WHY HE NEVER EVEN LOOKS AT PRINCIPIA DISCUSSION FOR YEARS AT A TIME.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 09, 2011, 01:51:26 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 01:29:51 AM
Quote from: Khara on March 09, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
Not the god of anything, just God. Capital G.
Any particular reason WHY you think that? Or are you just saying shit that you think will come off sounding outlandish and/or mysteriously deep?
Pretty much just because I found some stupid youtube video claiming proof of his immortality and a photo that makes it look like he's turning water into wine. Also because I kinda like him, and it had been several pages since anyone had actually posted anything about their beliefs on here.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:11:52 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 09, 2011, 01:51:26 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 01:29:51 AM
Quote from: Khara on March 09, 2011, 12:56:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 11:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 08, 2011, 02:55:24 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 08, 2011, 02:40:14 AM
Keanu Reeves is God. Fact.
ZOMGPINEALFNORD.
For what it's worth, I've never claimed to consult my pineal gland once in my life, nor have I ever used the word fnord in a conversation until now.
But I still say Keanu Reeves is God.
Of what?
Not the god of anything, just God. Capital G.
Any particular reason WHY you think that? Or are you just saying shit that you think will come off sounding outlandish and/or mysteriously deep?
Pretty much just because I found some stupid youtube video claiming proof of his immortality and a photo that makes it look like he's turning water into wine. Also because I kinda like him, and it had been several pages since anyone had actually posted anything about their beliefs on here.
So this is an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 09, 2011, 01:57:02 AM
AND THEN ECH REMEMBERED WHY HE NEVER EVEN LOOKS AT PRINCIPIA DISCUSSION FOR YEARS AT A TIME.
ECH has a point. These types of 'outlandish' statements (Keanu _IS_ God, This Glass of Water _IS_ a Tree), might possibly be shocking or at least outlandish enough to break a cabbage's "mental set", yet they simply flop around our feet like mostly dead fish.
I think a lot of people (especially on the internet) simply start spouting signal without thinking of the context their communications will reside in.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on March 09, 2011, 02:13:12 AM
So this is an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm entertaining this idea of Keanu Reeves being God as seriously as I do any idea.
Quote from: Telarus on March 09, 2011, 02:14:23 AM
ECH has a point. These types of 'outlandish' statements (Keanu _IS_ God, This Glass of Water _IS_ a Tree), might possibly be shocking or at least outlandish enough to break a cabbage's "mental set", yet they simply flop around our feet like mostly dead fish.
Sorry, I should have said I
believe Keanu Reeves to be God. Does that help?
I believe myself to be the one true God, and I am your God. I am the Lord, your GOD, and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger! And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon you!
Fascinating.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:27:52 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on March 09, 2011, 02:13:12 AM
So this is an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm entertaining this idea of Keanu Reeves being God as seriously as I do any idea.
Anyway, you're quite wrong. Everyone knows that Ian Kilmister is God.
quote author=Doktor Blight link=topic=18194.msg1015183#msg1015183 date=1299638262]
Anyway, you're quite wrong. Everyone knows that Ian Kilmister is God.
[/quote]
No, I'm pretty sure he's the Devil. Which is nearly as good.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:41:39 AM
That's it. You just doomed mankind. Hope you're proud of yourself.
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:34:28 AM
I believe myself to be the one true God, and I am your God. I am the Lord, your GOD, and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger! And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon you!
See, that's why I like the idea of Keanu as God. He's so nice and humble and won't shit plagues on people for not grovelling hard enough.
That's it. You just doomed mankind. Hope you're proud of yourself.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:34:28 AM
I believe myself to be the one true God, and I am your God. I am the Lord, your GOD, and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger! And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon you!
See, that's why I like the idea of Keanu as God. He's so nice and humble and won't shit plagues on people for not grovelling hard enough.
You want a God who goes "Whoa....." all the time? Sounds like a god that is too easily mindblown.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:34:28 AM
I believe myself to be the one true God, and I am your God. I am the Lord, your GOD, and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger! And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon you!
Just because you performed a certain act involving your mouth around a certain part of a male god's anatomy does not mean you now posses Godhead.
Not to mention a god that manages to get photographed eating a sandwich and puking out a car door in broad day light?
Quote from: aedh on March 09, 2011, 02:44:41 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:34:28 AM
I believe myself to be the one true God, and I am your God. I am the Lord, your GOD, and I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger! And you will know my name is the LORD when I lay my vengeance upon you!
Just because you performed a certain act involving your mouth around a certain part of a male god's anatomy does not mean you now posses Godhead.
Quiet you. :oops:
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
quote author=Doktor Blight link=topic=18194.msg1015183#msg1015183 date=1299638262]
Anyway, you're quite wrong. Everyone knows that Ian Kilmister is God.
No, I'm pretty sure he's the Devil. Which is nearly as good.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:41:39 AM
That's it. You just doomed mankind. Hope you're proud of yourself.
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
[/quote]
Bugger it, I modified my post instead of replying. How did I manage that?
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Just for that, I'm not going to give you the cure for AIDS. Choke on it.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Just for that, I'm not going to give you the cure for AIDS. Choke on it.
What does that matter? With or without AIDS, I've doomed us all! :evil:
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
quote author=Doktor Blight link=topic=18194.msg1015183#msg1015183 date=1299638262]
Anyway, you're quite wrong. Everyone knows that Ian Kilmister is God.
No, I'm pretty sure he's the Devil. Which is nearly as good.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:41:39 AM
That's it. You just doomed mankind. Hope you're proud of yourself.
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Bugger it, I modified my post instead of replying. How did I manage that?
Whoa.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:53:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Just for that, I'm not going to give you the cure for AIDS. Choke on it.
What does that matter? With or without AIDS, I've doomed us all! :evil:
Maybe you should look at the semantics again. I'll be fine.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 09, 2011, 02:54:13 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 02:40:22 AM
quote author=Doktor Blight link=topic=18194.msg1015183#msg1015183 date=1299638262]
Anyway, you're quite wrong. Everyone knows that Ian Kilmister is God.
No, I'm pretty sure he's the Devil. Which is nearly as good.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 02:41:39 AM
That's it. You just doomed mankind. Hope you're proud of yourself.
I'm very proud indeed, thank you. :)
Bugger it, I modified my post instead of replying. How did I manage that?
Whoa.
Sigmatic is God! He just proved it! And you've been misleading us by masquerading as an atheist this whole time.
I don't see any code, just a bunch of upside down kanji.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 09, 2011, 02:58:07 AM
I don't see any code, just a bunch of upside down kanji.
The Matrix was made by Japanese-Australian Robots?
Quote from: aedh on March 09, 2011, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 09, 2011, 02:58:07 AM
I don't see any code, just a bunch of upside down kanji.
The Matrix was made by Japanese-Australian Robots?
:aaa:
THAT'S IT!
I meant katakana.
Er-
If you look at the green symbols Neo hallucinates, they're mostly flipped around Japanese symbols.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 09, 2011, 03:07:51 AM
I meant katakana.
Er-
If you look at the green symbols Neo hallucinates, they're mostly flipped around Japanese symbols.
Probably dyslexia
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 09, 2011, 03:03:02 AM
Quote from: aedh on March 09, 2011, 03:00:48 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 09, 2011, 02:58:07 AM
I don't see any code, just a bunch of upside down kanji.
The Matrix was made by Japanese-Australian Robots?
:aaa:
THAT'S IT!
NOW I get it. Took me long enough. :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
Oh that part. That's easily explained by it being a movie.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
You realize you're discussing ad hoc theology with Discordians, right?
I just-
I want you to appreciate that.
I believe my apartment has a malignant little gnome who is currently hiding in his little gnome hole, clinging to my lost hex key, giggling to itself.
I hope my cats catch it and eat it.
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
yes it does.
Quote from: Luna on March 09, 2011, 03:20:07 AM
I believe my apartment has a malignant little gnome who is currently hiding in his little gnome hole, clinging to my lost hex key, giggling to itself.
I hope my cats catch it and eat it.
That gnome is, in fact, the avatar of Jebus.
Quote from: Luna on March 09, 2011, 03:20:07 AM
I believe my apartment has a malignant little gnome who is currently hiding in his little gnome hole, clinging to my lost hex key, giggling to itself.
I hope my cats catch it and eat it.
god, i hate that guy!
that little fucker actually caused domestic distress last night when he hid the checkbook for several hours...
he eventually put it back in the little basket that my wife and i both looked in about five times, and we exchanged the strangest look...
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:26:38 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
yes it does.
Because of quanta or :?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:29:35 AM
Quote from: Luna on March 09, 2011, 03:20:07 AM
I believe my apartment has a malignant little gnome who is currently hiding in his little gnome hole, clinging to my lost hex key, giggling to itself.
I hope my cats catch it and eat it.
god, i hate that guy!
that little fucker actually caused domestic distress last night when he hid the checkbook for several hours...
he eventually put it back in the little basket that my wife and i both looked in about five times, and we exchanged the strangest look...
Shit like that is why I still believe in 'fair' folk. Fuckers would steal shit, and hide it right in front of me, in the first place I looked.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:29:35 AM
Quote from: Luna on March 09, 2011, 03:20:07 AM
I believe my apartment has a malignant little gnome who is currently hiding in his little gnome hole, clinging to my lost hex key, giggling to itself.
I hope my cats catch it and eat it.
god, i hate that guy!
that little fucker actually caused domestic distress last night when he hid the checkbook for several hours...
he eventually put it back in the little basket that my wife and i both looked in about five times, and we exchanged the strangest look...
He is, appararently, afraid of being eaten by cats. Key found, immediately after wish for gnome's gory death posted.
Quote from: aedh on March 09, 2011, 03:31:09 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:26:38 AM
Quote from: spazmagoog on March 09, 2011, 03:14:41 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 09, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
your brain is used to flipping the image from your eyeballs to process it right side up, so when you directly perceive without using your eyes, the brain fucks it up...
That wouldn't explain why Neo sees an upright image made of upside-down symbols.
yes it does.
Because of quanta or :?
due to the brain's ability to take a joke too seriously
I believe that people here are wasting their time arguing or masturbating furiously over dadaism, when there's 7 billion monkeys out there upon which to inflict SCIENCE.
I don't know why you're here. I know I'm here to fuck with peoples' wiring, just to see what happens.
Right you are Dok. I am going to be inflicting people with something today. Not SCIENCE, but it wont be pleasant.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume there aren't any Baha'is on the board. That's a shame...we have access to all the best Persian food. :)
I knew a Baha'i kid when I was growing up in the islands. We were good friends until I moved to the states and lost touch with him. Kid was short, pudgy, wore glasses, and was incapable of tanning despite living in the tropical sun. Any two of these things would ensure a pretty rough childhood on STT, but all four of them combined to make his childhood absolutely brutal.
And if that weren't bad enough...his parents, in a misguided fit of attempted cultural acclimation, named the poor bastard "Jamaal".
It pretty much forced him to be a bad Baha'i and abandon pacifism. Kid was tougher at 9 years old than most grown men will ever be in their whole lives.
Which is to say, I know very little about it other than it's supposed to be completely pacifistic (or so I was told).
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
Quote from: Telarus on April 07, 2011, 06:31:37 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
But he's the most fun.... :argh!:
When I was maybe 10 my parents thought I needed to spend more time with a better quality of kids and forced me to join the church youth group. (Remember this is 1978 and I'm fairly certain they stayed home and got drunk) My very first meeting was a showing of two movies on the "moonies" of which there was a local branch in Winston Salem at the time. The movie was of course done with extreme christian bias and made the "moonies" out to be satan trying to steal children off the streets and out of the malls and airports, public pools and libraries and force them into a cult to work and be sex slaves. It actually showed these "moonies" grabbing kids from mall parking lots and shoving them into vans.
Needless to say it freaked me right the fuck out and I went home completely convinced these people were waiting behind every corner to grab me and make me a slave.
Never went back to a church youth group meeting again... :D
Quote from: Khara on April 07, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: Telarus on April 07, 2011, 06:31:37 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
But he's the most fun.... :argh!:
When I was maybe 10 my parents thought I needed to spend more time with a better quality of kids and forced me to join the church youth group. (Remember this is 1978 and I'm fairly certain they stayed home and got drunk) My very first meeting was a showing of two movies on the "moonies" of which there was a local branch in Winston Salem at the time. The movie was of course done with extreme christian bias and made the "moonies" out to be satan trying to steal children off the streets and out of the malls and airports, public pools and libraries and force them into a cult to work and be sex slaves. It actually showed these "moonies" grabbing kids from mall parking lots and shoving them into vans.
Needless to say it freaked me right the fuck out and I went home completely convinced these people were waiting behind every corner to grab me and make me a slave.
Never went back to a church youth group meeting again... :D
Incidentally, the Moonies
are still out to get you. They're just biding their time. :wink:
Quote from: Mangrove on April 07, 2011, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 07, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: Telarus on April 07, 2011, 06:31:37 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
But he's the most fun.... :argh!:
When I was maybe 10 my parents thought I needed to spend more time with a better quality of kids and forced me to join the church youth group. (Remember this is 1978 and I'm fairly certain they stayed home and got drunk) My very first meeting was a showing of two movies on the "moonies" of which there was a local branch in Winston Salem at the time. The movie was of course done with extreme christian bias and made the "moonies" out to be satan trying to steal children off the streets and out of the malls and airports, public pools and libraries and force them into a cult to work and be sex slaves. It actually showed these "moonies" grabbing kids from mall parking lots and shoving them into vans.
Needless to say it freaked me right the fuck out and I went home completely convinced these people were waiting behind every corner to grab me and make me a slave.
Never went back to a church youth group meeting again... :D
Incidentally, the Moonies are still out to get you. They're just biding their time. :wink:
I haven't seen any in years. Too bad, because now that I'm older if their benefit package came with dental and they offered quarterly bonuses.... :wink:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 05, 2011, 11:50:33 PM
I knew a Baha'i kid when I was growing up in the islands. We were good friends until I moved to the states and lost touch with him. Kid was short, pudgy, wore glasses, and was incapable of tanning despite living in the tropical sun. Any two of these things would ensure a pretty rough childhood on STT, but all four of them combined to make his childhood absolutely brutal.
And if that weren't bad enough...his parents, in a misguided fit of attempted cultural acclimation, named the poor bastard "Jamaal".
It pretty much forced him to be a bad Baha'i and abandon pacifism. Kid was tougher at 9 years old than most grown men will ever be in their whole lives.
Which is to say, I know very little about it other than it's supposed to be completely pacifistic (or so I was told).
I wouldn't say it was completely Pacifistic. We are asked to request non-combatant type jobs if we go into the military, but if you are already doing that sort of thing when you become a Baha'i and it is too much trouble to switch jobs it's ok to keep doing it. In terms of self defense, we are encouraged to find ways to deal with situations that avoid violence, but no one expects you to just let people beat you up if you can't avoid it. I certainly wouldn't expect that from my kids.
Quote from: Telarus on April 07, 2011, 06:31:37 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
I'd say you were in the vicinity but not quite on target. The energy you are refering to is really just a metaphore for the connection we all have to "God" and how the Prophets connection is so much stronger or clearer. One way to think of it is to picture God as the Sun. Each of us is like a mirror, reflecting the suns light. Some mirrors are clearer than others. Those that are clearest are the Prophets. Based on their teachingsm the rest of us try to "clear the dust from our mirrors" so we can better reflect Gods light. Baha'u'llah is seen as the most recent Prophet, not the last.
There is a more complete description at www.bahai.us (http://www.bahai.us) and www.bahai.org (http://www.bahai.org) .
Why do I get the feeling that you said all that with a straight face? :lulz:
Why do the teachings of Christianity say things like "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but through me..." and the teachings of Islam say things like "So I came and in me the line of Prophets has ended." and stuff? I mean it's all well and good to talk about greater and lesser covenants, but if you accept these as sayings of the prophets, don't they contradict the idea that everyone gets a special revelation relevant to time and place?
The major world religions have explicitly contradictory cosmologies as well. How do you reconcile Nirvana and Sheol and Reincarnation and the End of Days and the return of Krishna?
Quote from: Slyph on April 14, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
How do you reconcile Nirvana and Sheol and Reincarnation and the End of Days and the return of Krishna?
Personally, I blame a bad batch of gin.
Or maybe a really good Jinn. ;)
But how will I work?
Oh...
Okay, outside it is!
Quote from: Slyph on April 14, 2011, 11:13:55 AM
Why do the teachings of Christianity say things like "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but through me..." and the teachings of Islam say things like "So I came and in me the line of Prophets has ended." and stuff? I mean it's all well and good to talk about greater and lesser covenants, but if you accept these as sayings of the prophets, don't they contradict the idea that everyone gets a special revelation relevant to time and place?
The major world religions have explicitly contradictory cosmologies as well. How do you reconcile Nirvana and Sheol and Reincarnation and the End of Days and the return of Krishna?
Not neccesarily. The saying by Jesus is taken to mean that it is through the Manifestations of God we learn about God and come to know Gods attributes. Regarding the statement by Muhammed, I am not familiar with that particular quote, but I Baha'u'llah spoke at length about the idea of Muhammed as the "Seal" of the Prophets. A fellow by the name of Christopher Buck has written a couple of good articles on this...one can be found here http://christopherbuck.com/Buck_PDFs/Buck_Seal_2007.pdf (http://christopherbuck.com/Buck_PDFs/Buck_Seal_2007.pdf). In essense, the meaning of "Seal" is not as final as it has been taken to mean in orthodox Islam.
Regarding the different cosmologies, parables, miracles and prophesies from the various faiths, these are largely taken to be figurative explanations for the nature of God and the universe and means to teach rather than things to be taken literally. It's all symbolic, just in different ways for different people at different times. I even look at Eris and Discordianism in this light.
I take your faith as a parable belying the greater truth that there is no God and worms shite us out.
Quote from: Slyph on April 14, 2011, 06:48:49 PM
I take your faith as a parable belying the greater truth that there is no God and worms shite us out.
What kind of worms? cause I only believe in the giant purple ones. Anyone who believes in the small blue ones is a heretic.
This too is a parable, it's actually maggots :x
QuoteActive decay is characterized by the period of greatest mass loss. This loss occurs as a result of both the voracious feeding of maggots and the purging of decomposition fluids into the surrounding environment.[6] The purged fluids accumulate around the body and create a cadaver decomposition island (CDI).[3] Liquefaction of tissues and disintegration become apparent during this time and strong odours persist.[1] The end of active decay is signaled by the migration of maggots away from the body to pupate.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition)
:evil: _SATAN & ERIS. SITTING IN A TREE. F_N_O_R_D_I_N_G First comes love. then comes marriage. then comes the reverend roger in a baby carriage.
DISCORDICA SATANICA
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to us as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
Quote from: Telarus on April 17, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to use as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
But I may well be a cabbage!
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
Quote from: Slyph on April 14, 2011, 06:59:20 PM
The purged fluids accumulate around the body and create a cadaver decomposition island (CDI)
This is my favorite kind of island. I'm going to try to work this phrase into my conversations this week.
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
Some sort of universal energy? Isn't that kind of vague?
Yeah, I mean, if you're going to actually BELIEVE in something (rather than just suspect that it might be the case), shouldn't you have a little more specificity attached to your belief?
Also, are we talking a really real energy, separate from the kinds we already know about, or a metaphoric energy?
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Telarus on April 17, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to use as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
But I may well be a cabbage!
no but i went to a book store the other day looking for a copy. they didn't have one.
I will order one online sometime soon.
my favorite satanic book is a book i bought at an old book store
book is almost 100 years old
they just don't write books the way they used to
it is called "The Devil's Dictionary"
its author disappeared in mexico in the early 1900's
no one knows what happened to him
i actually am working on my own Satanic Black book bible completely original material and very provocative
and very offensive to many
of course my satanic bible holds lesser priority then my main literary project i'm working on which is more along the lines of the pursuit of excellence/life lessons/cognitive virtue
heres some reading material on satan
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/FOR.html (http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/FOR.html)
its positive satanism
incorporating discordian lore and satanic lore is a fun project to me
uhhh i gotta goto class bbl
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 18, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Telarus on April 17, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to use as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
But I may well be a cabbage!
my favorite satanic book is a book i bought at an old book store
book is almost 100 years old
they just don't write books the way they used to
it is called "The Devil's Dictionary"
its author disappeared in mexico in the early 1900's
no one knows what happened to him
That is seriously awesome! I am jealous.
If you finish your book will you post about it on here?
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
Wrong end of the horse, my friend.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
u so mean
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
u so mean
If you think that's mean, you're really, REALLY in the wrong place.
Quote from: Slyph on April 18, 2011, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
Some sort of universal energy? Isn't that kind of vague?
Its extremely vague. I haven't worked out much about it beyond that. lol
Quote from: Luna on April 18, 2011, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
u so mean
If you think that's mean, you're really, REALLY in the wrong place.
I think he was weak trolling against what he saw as a lame attempt at getting a rise out of him. dude hasn't been here long enough to know that that's what he really BELIEVES.
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
u so mean
Mean is pointing out that by you posting that, you are yet another turd that got caught into the gravity well, and are circling the drain like the rest of us.
Quote from: Luna on April 18, 2011, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 07:25:33 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 18, 2011, 07:10:25 PM
I REALLY believe that this thread is somehow a magical turd magnet.
Fuck's sake. It's a good idea for a thread, it had a few good discussions, and yet here it remains, pulling in turd comets from as far as the horsehead nebula.
u so mean
If you think that's mean, you're really, REALLY in the wrong place.
Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
I believe in some sort of universal energy too... there's this really great philosopher who talks a lot about that, and I think his theories are pretty sound, you should check him out: http://www.feynmanphysicslectures.com/
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
I believe in some sort of universal energy too... there's this really great philosopher who talks a lot about that, and I think his theories are pretty sound, you should check him out: http://www.feynmanphysicslectures.com/
:mittens:
I BELIEVE IN KINETIC ENERGY.
\
:love:
STOP IT MOM I'M BOBBING FOR APPLES
/
:love:
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
I believe in some sort of universal energy too... there's this really great philosopher who talks a lot about that, and I think his theories are pretty sound, you should check him out: http://www.feynmanphysicslectures.com/
His theories appear quite sound, indeed. Looks like I walked into a storm of logic by throwing out my unspecified idea as a 'belief'. :horrormirth:
Yeah. Around here, we tend to ask for specifics. And demand that you defend them.
I believe in magick!
I BELIEVE IN A THING CALLED LOVE
JUST LISTEN TO THE RHYTHM OF MY HEART
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 18, 2011, 08:42:00 PM
I BELIEVE IN A THING CALLED LOVE
JUST LISTEN TO THE RHYTHM OF MY HEART
THERE'S A CHANCE WE CAN MAKE IT NOW!
WE'LL BE ROCKIN' 'TIL THE SUN GOES DOWN!
I BELIEVE IN A THING CALLED LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE!
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?????? :argh!:
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on April 18, 2011, 08:50:40 PM
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?????? :argh!:
Shitty one-hit wonders from the late '90's, early 2000s, maybe?
I BELIEVE I CAN FLY!!!
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 12:11:42 AM
I chose atheist because I do not believe in any gods.. I do however believe in some sort of universal energy, not necessarily higher or sentient though. Some definitions say that belief in a universal energy excludes me from atheism... but since I don't see that energy as sentient I still identify as atheist. *shrug*
I believe in some sort of universal energy too... there's this really great philosopher who talks a lot about that, and I think his theories are pretty sound, you should check him out: http://www.feynmanphysicslectures.com/
Nigel you are fucking boss. Yeah!
:thanks:
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 18, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Telarus on April 17, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to use as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
But I may well be a cabbage!
my favorite satanic book is a book i bought at an old book store
book is almost 100 years old
they just don't write books the way they used to
it is called "The Devil's Dictionary"
its author disappeared in mexico in the early 1900's
no one knows what happened to him
That is seriously awesome! I am jealous.
If you finish your book will you post about it on here?
It is NOT awesome in any way. And even if it was, being jealous of it is like being jealous of the whore in a 3-act donkey show in Juarez.
Satanists are just Randroids with black fingernail polish. Most of them are socially retarded and lack the sophistication of thought to understand that they're essentially nothing more than the butt of a joke and/or fodder for an extremely sophomoric psychosexual ponzi scheme. By this measure, Sticker Ninja is like a shining fucking PARAGON of what Satanists aspire to be.
And believe me, on the off chance that he ever finishes the "book" he claims to be writing, he'll never shut up about it.
It's hardly an obscure title.
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Dictionary-Ambrose-Bierce/dp/0195126270
Didn't Roger do a parody of it a few years ago?
Quote from: Nigel on April 19, 2011, 01:41:35 AM
It's hardly an obscure title.
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Dictionary-Ambrose-Bierce/dp/0195126270
Didn't Roger do a parody of it a few years ago?
Yes. It also has nothing to do with Satanism. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 19, 2011, 01:42:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 19, 2011, 01:41:35 AM
It's hardly an obscure title.
http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Dictionary-Ambrose-Bierce/dp/0195126270
Didn't Roger do a parody of it a few years ago?
Yes. It also has nothing to do with Satanism. :lol:
Yeah, I know. But in Sticker Ninja's head it does. :eek:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 19, 2011, 01:34:41 AM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 06:53:32 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 18, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 18, 2011, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Telarus on April 17, 2011, 11:49:47 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Sticker_Ninja on April 17, 2011, 09:30:02 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 17, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Philosophical Taoist up in this :fnord:
Satan up in this :evil:
Have you read the Satanic Bible? Is it any good? I mean to purchase a copy soon.
Dude, you're not going to get any sort of coherent response.
Because Sticker Ninja doesn't have the balls to talk to use as if we were anything other than cabbages.
failMonkey ITT
But I may well be a cabbage!
my favorite satanic book is a book i bought at an old book store
book is almost 100 years old
they just don't write books the way they used to
it is called "The Devil's Dictionary"
its author disappeared in mexico in the early 1900's
no one knows what happened to him
That is seriously awesome! I am jealous.
If you finish your book will you post about it on here?
It is NOT awesome in any way. And even if it was, being jealous of it is like being jealous of the whore in a 3-act donkey show in Juarez.
Satanists are just Randroids with black fingernail polish. Most of them are socially retarded and lack the sophistication of thought to understand that they're essentially nothing more than the butt of a joke and/or fodder for an extremely sophomoric psychosexual ponzi scheme. By this measure, Sticker Ninja is like a shining fucking PARAGON of what Satanists aspire to be.
And believe me, on the off chance that he ever finishes the "book" he claims to be writing, he'll never shut up about it.
Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I can't enjoy reading the philosophy. From parts I've read of the Satanist Bible so far, Satan appears to be the patron saint of egoists. Makes a change; and if I'm wrong on that, I'll still learn something new. I also have a various and growing assortment other philosophical/religious works such as the book of Chuang Tzu, the Tao Te Ching, books by Confucius, the Quran, the Holy Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Enchiridion of Epictetus, the Blind Watchmaker, Machiavelli's The Prince, Aesop's Fables...the list could probably go on.
As for the jealousy part, it is largely because I have a bit of a thing for antique and/or unusual books. Weird old books can be really interesting, and even enlightening.
tl;dr I enjoy stuff.
Edit: typos
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
Oh you're probably right.
I don't believe in a deity, really. I'm as close to atheism as you can get without going over.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvuzrmKJZU1qzle7ho1_400.jpg)
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:00:57 AM
I don't believe in a deity, really. I'm as close to atheism as you can get without going over.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvuzrmKJZU1qzle7ho1_400.jpg)
Going over into AWESOME TOWN Where all the chillenist motherfuckers hang
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:00:57 AM
I don't believe in a deity, really. I'm as close to atheism as you can get without going over.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvuzrmKJZU1qzle7ho1_400.jpg)
Going over into AWESOME TOWN Where all the chillenist motherfuckers hang
Is that seriously Neil Patrick Harris? I heard he was the Mayor of Awesome Town.
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
:lol:
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
Newsreel, oplz oplz?
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
This is the best description of Satanism I've ever seen. :lol:
Quote from: Khara on April 07, 2011, 07:23:58 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on April 07, 2011, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 07, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: Telarus on April 07, 2011, 06:31:37 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on April 06, 2011, 11:11:31 AM
There's been plenty of "Bwaaw haws" here though.
I thought Baha'i was like Wicca, for Hindus and Buddhists. But without the "skyclad" fixation.
:lulz:
Baha'i is an attempt to connect all of the "Great Prophets" (yes... ALL of them) into a single narrative (they were manifestations of some unique 'energy' or some BS), which culminated in Baha'iula the Last Great Prophet. Everything you like about massive 'monotheistic' Asian church congregations, no Rev Sun Yung Moon.
But he's the most fun.... :argh!:
When I was maybe 10 my parents thought I needed to spend more time with a better quality of kids and forced me to join the church youth group. (Remember this is 1978 and I'm fairly certain they stayed home and got drunk) My very first meeting was a showing of two movies on the "moonies" of which there was a local branch in Winston Salem at the time. The movie was of course done with extreme christian bias and made the "moonies" out to be satan trying to steal children off the streets and out of the malls and airports, public pools and libraries and force them into a cult to work and be sex slaves. It actually showed these "moonies" grabbing kids from mall parking lots and shoving them into vans.
Needless to say it freaked me right the fuck out and I went home completely convinced these people were waiting behind every corner to grab me and make me a slave.
Never went back to a church youth group meeting again... :D
Incidentally, the Moonies are still out to get you. They're just biding their time. :wink:
I haven't seen any in years. Too bad, because now that I'm older if their benefit package came with dental and they offered quarterly bonuses.... :wink:
A couple years ago someone came to my door and my dad said she was a Moonie.
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
Fuck yes. THIS.
:mittens:
I just horked soda through my nose. Thanks Slyph.
Quote from: Slyph on April 19, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
Quote from: navkat on April 19, 2011, 10:10:48 AM
Quote from: - on April 19, 2011, 09:55:38 AM
The problem isn't that the Satanic Bible is disagreeable...it's that it is disagreeable and crap in exactly the kind of way you'd expect from a small time grifter doing a take off of Ayn Rand (who herself was a small-time grifter doing a take off of Nietzsche and Aristotle, and failing badly).
If you've got time to waste to read crap, knock yourself out. I wouldn't bother though, when you can just read the people they were trying to emulate, who were both far more amusing and intelligent than they themselves could ever hope to be.
I have to agree: the book made little sense to me. I couldn't understand how LaVey was able to say "The satanic truth is there IS no god and you should just do whatever you want with reckless abandon...but you should worship Satan too." I mean, that's kinda what we do here except for us, it's a big joke.
The idea is basically: "Freak out the squares with baphomet heads, if they're too dumb to realise you don't literally worship Satan, when you've deliberately set out to make it appear that you worship Satan, they're beneith you're obviously superior intellect."
It's as stupid as that. It's literally that stupid.
It's like, "Wear a crash helmet 24/7 and lick windows. When people think you're retarded, chuckle inwardly."
... Well I guess I'll need to reevaluate how I spend my Wednesdays.
:lulz:
For the record... (not that anyone really cares)
I used to think I was a Satanist. It probably happens to a lot of 17 year olds whose fathers are Baptist preachers and who are looking for a way to distance themselves as far and as fast from a religion that killed their Grandmothers (that's a different story). I don't know what the fuck LaVey was thinking, or what his band of smelly groupies thought he was doing (none of them probably had a real clue anyway), but for me Satanism did exactly what it was supposed to do: violently break my addiction to tradition and socially-acceptable rituals, while maintaining my psychic need for ritual and providing something that felt like a belief system while simultaneously undermining and eventually dissolving my need for a belief system.
TL;DR: I had a Satanic phase, and it worked for me.
So I thought I had the Satan and everything was cool, until I realized that other Satanists were absolute, complete wankers who liked to stew in their own body odors and lack of hygiene, get hopelessly indebted to the system, accomplish nothing with their lives and become total wastes, while talking themselves up, starting and abandoning pointless little Churches of Satan/Baphomet/Lucifer/etc., and shitting their impotent elitism on anybody who looked at them weird.
So that sucked. But then I fell in with a bunch of crazies who called themselves "Discordians." And the rest is history.
Quote from: postvex™ on April 20, 2011, 03:36:05 AM
For the record... (not that anyone really cares)
I used to think I was a Satanist. It probably happens to a lot of 17 year olds whose fathers are Baptist preachers and who are looking for a way to distance themselves as far and as fast from a religion that killed their Grandmothers (that's a different story). I don't know what the fuck LaVey was thinking, or what his band of smelly groupies thought he was doing (none of them probably had a real clue anyway), but for me Satanism did exactly what it was supposed to do: violently break my addiction to tradition and socially-acceptable rituals, while maintaining my psychic need for ritual and providing something that felt like a belief system while simultaneously undermining and eventually dissolving my need for a belief system.
TL;DR: I had a Satanic phase, and it worked for me.
So I thought I had the Satan and everything was cool, until I realized that other Satanists were absolute, complete wankers who liked to stew in their own body odors and lack of hygiene, get hopelessly indebted to the system, accomplish nothing with their lives and become total wastes, while talking themselves up, starting and abandoning pointless little Churches of Satan/Baphomet/Lucifer/etc., and shitting their impotent elitism on anybody who looked at them weird.
So that sucked. But then I fell in with a bunch of crazies who called themselves "Discordians." And the rest is history.
Great story, thanks for sharing :)
Quote from: Diogenes on April 20, 2011, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: postvex™ on April 20, 2011, 03:36:05 AM
For the record... (not that anyone really cares)
I used to think I was a Satanist. It probably happens to a lot of 17 year olds whose fathers are Baptist preachers and who are looking for a way to distance themselves as far and as fast from a religion that killed their Grandmothers (that's a different story). I don't know what the fuck LaVey was thinking, or what his band of smelly groupies thought he was doing (none of them probably had a real clue anyway), but for me Satanism did exactly what it was supposed to do: violently break my addiction to tradition and socially-acceptable rituals, while maintaining my psychic need for ritual and providing something that felt like a belief system while simultaneously undermining and eventually dissolving my need for a belief system.
TL;DR: I had a Satanic phase, and it worked for me.
So I thought I had the Satan and everything was cool, until I realized that other Satanists were absolute, complete wankers who liked to stew in their own body odors and lack of hygiene, get hopelessly indebted to the system, accomplish nothing with their lives and become total wastes, while talking themselves up, starting and abandoning pointless little Churches of Satan/Baphomet/Lucifer/etc., and shitting their impotent elitism on anybody who looked at them weird.
So that sucked. But then I fell in with a bunch of crazies who called themselves "Discordians." And the rest is history.
Great story, thanks for sharing :)
It's just kind of funny to watch Satanism (which for fuck's sake is as valid a "belief structure" as anything else judging by the fact that
everything is bullshit anyway) get slammed for being an "inferior" idea, but not until its premise has been ignored, its intention misrepresented, and assumptions about it have been invented and accepted. I just hold you people to a higher standard than that.
I agree, teenage Satanism that only costs you the price of some black nail polish and possibly a month's rent if your parents kick you out of the basement, is a pretty useless thing to follow, if you leave it at that. I also agree most Satanists are hopeless narcissists with no grip on anything resembling the "superiority" they claim. But I also know it's a narrowly focused religion with a few good ideas, and I wouldn't write it off as utter bollocks, especially considering Discordianism.
I mean... what's more Discordian than a fake religion that even jakes its own members?
QuoteIt's just kind of funny to watch Satanism (which for fuck's sake is as valid a "belief structure" as anything else judging by the fact that everything is bullshit anyway)
The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them from their center.
My shirt is black.
I like coffee.
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
Quotebut not until its premise has been ignored,
It doesn't have a premise. The Satanic Bible is a book of homilies and bullshit platitudes, like an inverted Chicken Soup for the Soul (PITCH BLACK ICHOR FOR THE SPHINCTER)
Okay, should, or should not, a La'veyan Satanist profess Satanism? Should, or should not, a La'veyan Satanist invest in stocks and shares? Should, or should not a Satanist join PETA?
QuoteI agree, teenage Satanism that only costs you the price of some black nail polish and possibly a month's rent if your parents kick you out of the basement, is a pretty useless thing to follow, if you leave it at that. I also agree most Satanists are hopeless narcissists with no grip on anything resembling the "superiority" they claim. But I also know it's a narrowly focused religion with a few good ideas, and I wouldn't write it off as utter bollocks, especially considering Discordianism.
I mean... what's more Discordian than a fake religion that even jakes its own members?
Not being so completely on the fucking nose about it? Pulling the stick out of your ass?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Slyph/Untitled-4.jpg)
(Me at about 15, that's an inverted pentagram :) )
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
I don't disagree with everything you said, but this one is only as slammable as beliefs/things written about in other religions. E.g. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and Moses parting a fucking ocean.
If you contend that Satanism is inferior because it has references to the supernatural, you can't really call it inferior (on those grounds) to others that do the same.
Edit: I understand that you're not necessarily doing that though.
Quote from: Diogenes on April 21, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
I don't disagree with everything you said, but this one is only as slammable as beliefs/things written about in other religions. E.g. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and Moses parting a fucking ocean.
If you contend that Satanism is inferior because it has references to the supernatural, you can't really call it inferior (on those grounds) to others that do the same.
Edit: I understand that you're not necessarily doing that though.
"Other people do it too" is no basis for a belief, does it really belong in one that portends to be a state of justified rebellion?
Anyway, what I really want to say is that Satanism has zero (I think the word is) Deontological merit. Everything Satanism IS, Is effectively the wearing a pentagram yeah satan fuck you buddy stuff. Because there's no actual advice there.
PS that last post was posted in literally one minute so it might be shit.
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
QuoteIt's just kind of funny to watch Satanism (which for fuck's sake is as valid a "belief structure" as anything else judging by the fact that everything is bullshit anyway)
The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them from their center.
My shirt is black.
I like coffee.
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
Quotebut not until its premise has been ignored,
It doesn't have a premise. The Satanic Bible is a book of homilies and bullshit platitudes, like an inverted Chicken Soup for the Soul (PITCH BLACK ICHOR FOR THE SPHINCTER)
Okay, should, or should not, a La'veyan Satanist profess Satanism? Should, or should not, a La'veyan Satanist invest in stocks and shares? Should, or should not a Satanist join PETA?
QuoteI agree, teenage Satanism that only costs you the price of some black nail polish and possibly a month's rent if your parents kick you out of the basement, is a pretty useless thing to follow, if you leave it at that. I also agree most Satanists are hopeless narcissists with no grip on anything resembling the "superiority" they claim. But I also know it's a narrowly focused religion with a few good ideas, and I wouldn't write it off as utter bollocks, especially considering Discordianism.
I mean... what's more Discordian than a fake religion that even jakes its own members?
Not being so completely on the fucking nose about it? Pulling the stick out of your ass?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Slyph/Untitled-4.jpg)
(Me at about 15, that's an inverted pentagram :) )
When did LaVey advocate the use of an apostrophe in the middle of his name? Just curious.
Anyway, you're missing the point of the whole shebang of "Satanism," just like 95% of Satanists do. The Satanic Bible
is full of bullshit platitudes. It isn't supposed to be taken seriously, at face value, for what it spouts in the pages of that book (that was half ripped off from Ragnar Redbeard anyway) or any other book. Read some of the ancillary material and you might start to get an idea. The whole thing is a
show, and it's done for the specific purpose of releasing the practitioner from organized religion without shocking their systems by severing the motions of going through religious ritual.
Basically it's like methadone for Catholics. For example, you're addicted to saying Hail Marys as if that's got any chance of ever helping you. Satanism comes along and says (outright, mind you) "Fuck Hail Marys. Repeat this stupid mantra here: it's bullshit, but it'll make you feel better." The trick is not losing sight of the fact that it's all bullshit. Eventually you'll have established the ego that your religion denied you, and you won't need Satanism either, except maybe as a party gag. Which is exactly how LaVey used it.
Of course, I'd never go back to being a "Satanist" now, and I can't defend those who get all stonefaced serious about it. And also the elitism thing is a little stupid but it's hardly like Satanists are the only group of people guilty of that (see: everyone else, including us).
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 21, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
I don't disagree with everything you said, but this one is only as slammable as beliefs/things written about in other religions. E.g. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and Moses parting a fucking ocean.
If you contend that Satanism is inferior because it has references to the supernatural, you can't really call it inferior (on those grounds) to others that do the same.
Edit: I understand that you're not necessarily doing that though.
"Other people do it too" is no basis for a belief, does it really belong in one that portends to be a state of justified rebellion?
Anyway, what I really want to say is that Satanism has zero (I think the word is) Deontological merit. Everything Satanism IS, Is effectively the wearing a pentagram yeah satan fuck you buddy stuff. Because there's no actual advice there.
It depends. The Satanist Bible is full of advice. There are commandments etc. I don't agree with them, but either way it's more than wearing a pentagram. I don't mean to defend it, I just think that if it should be laughed off, then only as much as numerous religions that have inspired worse acts of douchebaggery in the past.
As far as I see it, the only thing that separates the Holy Bible from the Satanist Bible is that one was a modern writer and the other was some ignorant desert nomads. They're both full of crap and horrible ethics, with some valid advice/philosophy to be found somewhere, which is what followers usually focus on.
I look at it this way, until god, satan, the goddess or the flying spaghetti monster shows up with some really good special effects that convince me they are the shit, it's all supposition to make people feel better.
I mean each and every religion has a few core concepts. This is where Cain would be better to describe than I, but you know what I mean. Don't shit on each other, don't kill each other, don't steal, don't lie, don't be a fucking tool, don't fuck people's spouse's and so forth.
If it were truly as serious as some of these religions make it out to be, I have to think that one of these supposed godly beings would have toasted us a long time ago if they were sweating the little shit not to mention the big stuff...
Quote from: Diogenes on April 21, 2011, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: Diogenes on April 21, 2011, 03:13:47 PM
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 01:12:16 PM
Quoteget slammed for being an "inferior" idea,
"Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained."
I don't disagree with everything you said, but this one is only as slammable as beliefs/things written about in other religions. E.g. "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and Moses parting a fucking ocean.
If you contend that Satanism is inferior because it has references to the supernatural, you can't really call it inferior (on those grounds) to others that do the same.
Edit: I understand that you're not necessarily doing that though.
"Other people do it too" is no basis for a belief, does it really belong in one that portends to be a state of justified rebellion?
Anyway, what I really want to say is that Satanism has zero (I think the word is) Deontological merit. Everything Satanism IS, Is effectively the wearing a pentagram yeah satan fuck you buddy stuff. Because there's no actual advice there.
It depends. The Satanist Bible is full of advice. There are commandments etc. I don't agree with them, but either way it's more than wearing a pentagram. I don't mean to defend it, I just think that if it should be laughed off, then only as much as numerous religions that have inspired worse acts of douchebaggery in the past.
As far as I see it, the only thing that separates the Holy Bible from the Satanist Bible is that one was a modern writer and the other was some ignorant desert nomads. They're both full of crap and horrible ethics, with some valid advice/philosophy to be found somewhere, which is what followers usually focus on.
Shit, you know, I have absolutely no idea where I picked up that apostrophie thing. Weird :|
Alright, let's look at the Satanic commandments.
Quote1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
Trite.
Quote2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
Trite. Also, sort of inhibited.
Quote3. When in another's lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
When in another's RITUAL FORTRESS OF WANTON LUST AND MONSTROUS FUCKING CRUELTY use a coaster.
Trite.
Quote4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
Unclear. What, fucking castle doctrine the motherfucker? Throw him out? Say something cutting about his weight?
Also kind of trite.
Quote5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
Hahah. What?
Quote6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
Don't steal unless you can rationalise it.
Quote7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
Trust in confirmation bias. (Bullshit.)
Quote8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
Spend all day wanking and eating expensive german biscuits.
Quote9. Do not harm little children.
Duh.
Quote10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
Don't kill animals unless you want to.
Quote11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
KA-ME-HA-ME...
There is no "no basis" when it comes to believing. That's what makes it a belief.
/
:joshua:
Satanism has a few useful ideas, especially when you're young and stupid. There's a very strong Think For Yourself element to it, there's no central leadership and you're expected to figure shit out on your own. And there's silly hats, of course.
Christianity and Wicca and the multitude* have a few useful ideas here and there too, but they're all equally covered in bullshit and often give their adherents justification to excuse activities that would otherwise be seen as amoral, stupid, selfish, cruel, or just plain wrong. Though some use to commit acts of charity and kindness. Or any number of things people like to do.
*Except for Discordiansim, ever. Sure, uh-huh, yep, you bet.
I don't care for philosophical satanists, but I get a big kick out of actual devil worshippers.
I mean, let's be honest, they're basically Christians with a persecution complex. It's not like they disbelieve in God, they just choose to worship the Other Guy. It takes a certain amount of balls to knowingly choose to follow the admitted loser.
So yeah... I find devil worshippers amusing, but I find philosophical satanists tedious.
*edited for spelin
Quote from: Hoopla on April 21, 2011, 06:40:04 PM
I don't care for philosophical satanists, but I get a big kick out of actual devil worshippers.
I mean, let's be honest, they're basically Christians with a persecution complex. It's not like the disbelieve in God, they just choose to worship the Other Guy. It takes a certain amount of balls to knowingly choose to follow the admitted loser.
So yeah... I find devil worshippers amusing, but I find philosophical satanists tedious.
I would say I'm on the same boat as you.
Actually "Don't complain about that to which you need not subject yourself" is the single most important rule I follow to this day and it annoys me to no end when other people can't so the same. Fuck! If you're broke because you overspent on a stupid fucking car loan, don't bitch about it... return the car or let it get repossessed and buy a clinker instead. Also do not complain about your weight when you can't quit eating cupcakes. In short, if it is within your power to fix a problem, choosing to complain about that problem instead makes you a waste of DNA.
HAIL SATAN OR KILL ME
Quote from: postvex™ on April 21, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Actually "Don't complain about that to which you need not subject yourself" is the single most important rule I follow to this day and it annoys me to no end when other people can't so the same. Fuck! If you're broke because you overspent on a stupid fucking car loan, don't bitch about it... return the car or let it get repossessed and buy a clinker instead. Also do not complain about your weight when you can't quit eating cupcakes. In short, if it is within your power to fix a problem, choosing to complain about that problem instead makes you a waste of DNA.
HAIL SATAN OR KILL ME
"All this charity/hard work/sport/thinking is really tiring. Shit. It's hard work."
Quote from: Slyph on April 21, 2011, 06:49:31 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on April 21, 2011, 06:43:20 PM
Actually "Don't complain about that to which you need not subject yourself" is the single most important rule I follow to this day and it annoys me to no end when other people can't so the same. Fuck! If you're broke because you overspent on a stupid fucking car loan, don't bitch about it... return the car or let it get repossessed and buy a clinker instead. Also do not complain about your weight when you can't quit eating cupcakes. In short, if it is within your power to fix a problem, choosing to complain about that problem instead makes you a waste of DNA.
HAIL SATAN OR KILL ME
"All this charity/hard work/sport/thinking is really tiring. Shit. It's hard work."
Actually I think Vex has a valid point with that one, even in regard to things like charity work.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 21, 2011, 06:40:04 PM
I don't care for philosophical satanists, but I get a big kick out of actual devil worshippers.
I mean, let's be honest, they're basically Christians with a persecution complex. It's not like they disbelieve in God, they just choose to worship the Other Guy. It takes a certain amount of balls to knowingly choose to follow the admitted loser.
So yeah... I find devil worshippers amusing, but I find philosophical satanists tedious.
Yeah, before I actually
read the Satanic Bible when I was like 15, this was my thought too. I was like "What's in it for these guys? Why believe in Xtianity and then worship The Bad Guy on purpose?" I kept thinking there had to either be some believed benefit or that the satanists were just warped.
From the mouths of babes, right?
Satanism (which I would call my secondary religion) for me was always a less retarded version of Just-in-Case Christianity. The rationalization that I should be a Christian because I don't know for sure if heaven exists always bothered me, but when I found I could flip it around and just say "Hey, Satan's a pretty chill (Hah.) dude. If I worship him by just doing whatever then if Hell is real and I go there it will be because I chose to go there, and not for being a bad Christian, so I'll probably get some VIP treatment instead of that whole Lake O' Fire rigmarole.".
Plus it's funny to see peoples reactions when religion comes up. The people who chuckle are usually the ones who are worth hanging around with.
This sums it up pretty good for me. Oh, BTW, I was tapped to a piece in Generation Hex but I wisely stayed away from that idiotic publication to submit the piece to Key64 (the "key 23 reboot" which ended up crashing because of the Generation Hex drama).
http://imomus.livejournal.com/143938.html
QuoteYes, Satanism just strikes me as... silly, I'm afraid. Why abandon the idiocy of God if you're not also going to abandon the idiocy of The Devil? Sure, I love mystery, and I love "the old religion", the Greek pantheon, the Celts, Shinto, all that stuff. What I hate, though, is the way Christianity vilified fertility religions and made them "evil". You can still see the result of that in the way various speakers at the Disinfo conference, included on the DVD, have a certain "evil glow" in their eyes, or believe they possess an "evil charisma". America's idiotic binary culture forces you to be good or evil, with or against, constructive or destructive. The result is that alternative culture people internalize the stigma of otherness, becoming Fashion Goths and Slayer fans.
Just as the principal danger of anti-capitalism is that it makes you think like a capitalist, so the principal danger of Satanism is that it makes you think like a Christian. I am very, very evil, you think. Well, no you're not. If Christianity is silly, just walk away from it, and from its stigmas too; its dark underbelly, its Satanism. I mean, I'm all for people like Rushkoff reviving ethics and comparing the early internet to the Talmud. Interesting metaphor. And I must say Robert Anton Wilson comes across in his clip like a sweetie, an old Silenus or Pan type. But—well, here comes the inevitable Japan bit—I'm really so over this Western demonization of paganism, this I'm-so-evil thing. Shinto in Japan is a quiet, gentle, mainstream influence, and you can embrace its fertility messages, its nature messages, and its animism messages without having to become an outsider, or waggle your eyebrows like a second-rate magician practicing in front of the mirror. In other words, what in the West would be an alternative culture which you'd have to be a deviant or a nut or an outsider to embrace is, in Japan, something central which you can conform towards.
I dislike Satanism for aesthetic reasons too. Occult sections in bookstores are usually magnets for the spottiest, stupidest, most badly-dressed people. Occultist websites are appalling cautionary tales, evidence that, whatever else he does, Satan makes you commit every graphic design sin known to man. But I particularly resist precisely this thing that Jason Louv is advocating in Generation Hex, the stringing together of Satanism and alternative culture. I resist it because it's just fucking boring to see the counterculture summed up with a skull. But also because alternative culture has some important work to do, work it needs rationality and clear-headedness to carry through, and work which it needs to believe in its own ethical goodness to bring to mainstream acceptance. Wouldn't it be terrible if everyone, for instance, who thought there were other shibboleths than endless economic growth, all turned out to go to secret meetings and make secret signs to each other and think they were "evil"? Wouldn't it be a bit of a blow to the open source software movement, for instance, if you could say of its hobbit-like proponents, as these Satanist kids josh about Jason Louv, "Jason Louv drinks with nobody but the devil, I tell you! Satan mixes his cocktails! A horned beast with a dark and terrifying cock stirs his vodka martini and a putrid she-devil with monkeys for tits pours his lager! No man on earth dare sip from the same cup!" I mean, that wouldn't just be disinformation and defamation, it would be something much worse: distraction.
Not to mention that, y'know, Lavey incorporated quite a bit of Ayn Rand's pseudo philosophy into the core Satanist tenets. And so now the "hardcore" Satanists all have hard-ons for her fraudulent ass:
http://www.satanservice.org/theory/cosobj.txt
Quote from: Telarus on April 22, 2011, 03:45:03 AM
Not to mention that, y'know, Lavey incorporated quite a bit of Ayn Rand's pseudo philosophy into the core Satanist tenets. And so now the "hardcore" Satanists all have hard-ons for her fraudulent ass:
http://www.satanservice.org/theory/cosobj.txt
That article spent 4.5 paragrahs denouncing Objectivism and providing example after example of how Rand's philosophy differs fundamentally from Satanism, and one paragraph uttering an out-of-place disclaimer about Satanism having a lot in common with Objectivism despite the content of the rest of the article, but giving only a ghost of an example. I wouldn't classify that as definitive of Satanism at all, though, I'd just classify it as a terribly written article.
Quote from: Telarus on April 22, 2011, 03:37:59 AM
This sums it up pretty good for me. Oh, BTW, I was tapped to a piece in Generation Hex but I wisely stayed away from that idiotic publication to submit the piece to Key64 (the "key 23 reboot" which ended up crashing because of the Generation Hex drama).
http://imomus.livejournal.com/143938.html
QuoteYes, Satanism just strikes me as... silly, I'm afraid. Why abandon the idiocy of God if you're not also going to abandon the idiocy of The Devil? Sure, I love mystery, and I love "the old religion", the Greek pantheon, the Celts, Shinto, all that stuff. What I hate, though, is the way Christianity vilified fertility religions and made them "evil". You can still see the result of that in the way various speakers at the Disinfo conference, included on the DVD, have a certain "evil glow" in their eyes, or believe they possess an "evil charisma". America's idiotic binary culture forces you to be good or evil, with or against, constructive or destructive. The result is that alternative culture people internalize the stigma of otherness, becoming Fashion Goths and Slayer fans.
Just as the principal danger of anti-capitalism is that it makes you think like a capitalist, so the principal danger of Satanism is that it makes you think like a Christian. I am very, very evil, you think. Well, no you're not. If Christianity is silly, just walk away from it, and from its stigmas too; its dark underbelly, its Satanism. I mean, I'm all for people like Rushkoff reviving ethics and comparing the early internet to the Talmud. Interesting metaphor. And I must say Robert Anton Wilson comes across in his clip like a sweetie, an old Silenus or Pan type. But—well, here comes the inevitable Japan bit—I'm really so over this Western demonization of paganism, this I'm-so-evil thing. Shinto in Japan is a quiet, gentle, mainstream influence, and you can embrace its fertility messages, its nature messages, and its animism messages without having to become an outsider, or waggle your eyebrows like a second-rate magician practicing in front of the mirror. In other words, what in the West would be an alternative culture which you'd have to be a deviant or a nut or an outsider to embrace is, in Japan, something central which you can conform towards.
I dislike Satanism for aesthetic reasons too. Occult sections in bookstores are usually magnets for the spottiest, stupidest, most badly-dressed people. Occultist websites are appalling cautionary tales, evidence that, whatever else he does, Satan makes you commit every graphic design sin known to man. But I particularly resist precisely this thing that Jason Louv is advocating in Generation Hex, the stringing together of Satanism and alternative culture. I resist it because it's just fucking boring to see the counterculture summed up with a skull. But also because alternative culture has some important work to do, work it needs rationality and clear-headedness to carry through, and work which it needs to believe in its own ethical goodness to bring to mainstream acceptance. Wouldn't it be terrible if everyone, for instance, who thought there were other shibboleths than endless economic growth, all turned out to go to secret meetings and make secret signs to each other and think they were "evil"? Wouldn't it be a bit of a blow to the open source software movement, for instance, if you could say of its hobbit-like proponents, as these Satanist kids josh about Jason Louv, "Jason Louv drinks with nobody but the devil, I tell you! Satan mixes his cocktails! A horned beast with a dark and terrifying cock stirs his vodka martini and a putrid she-devil with monkeys for tits pours his lager! No man on earth dare sip from the same cup!" I mean, that wouldn't just be disinformation and defamation, it would be something much worse: distraction.
If Satanism had anything to do with worshiping the Christian devil or defining one's behavior as strictly "whatever the Christians
don't do," I'd agree with that assessment. It just misses the mark entirely. Satanism is to Christianity what Weird Al is to the artists he makes fun of. I'll grant that it's derivative, unoriginal, and ultimately boring, but it's still a different product from the original, intended for a different purpose, and done for the fun of sheer mockery.
Maybe I have a different view of it because I didn't get the chance to have a well-rounded, "any path is as good as any other" upbringing. It rages against Christianity specifically, a religion that was never particularly important to many people in the first place. It's maybe a bit like a manual on fixing wagon wheels with nothing but sagebrush for spare parts. It wouldn't mean much to somebody living in the 21st century.
Oshit, I re-read that link re: Rand and your right. Still,
that dude had a (philosophical) hard-on for (about) her.
On your 2nd points, I agree actually. Many of my friends "hail satan" ironically.
It's really just the Laveyan's who act like Thelemites who I have a problem with (and it's the same problem). I've met one (count it, one) serious Satanist that I had any respect for. But that's because Rex Church is a bad ass, and made EsoZone that much better that year, by convincing the crowd (with photos, none the less) that he was building a Ragnarok Engine out of old Nazi German scrap tank steel in his basement:
Quotea 40,000 pound demon conjuring forge which integrates such disciplines as Tesla technology, black radionics, and ruin value.
Here's a picture of BEN MACK and REX CHURCH 'smiling' for the camera... (I heard that synapse blow out, btw)
(http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ben_and_rex.jpg)
:fnord: :lulz: :fnord:
MUST NOT BE NAMED. MUST NOT BE NAMED.
OH NO! :eek:
Oh, now you've done it. Prepare for 3 months of spamming from He Who Shall Not Be Named.
:lulz:
How terrible is it that the first name that came to mind was Lord Voldermort?
:oops:
Is it good luck to rub the bumps on his forehead?
Do you suppose that, in private, Rex Church is really giggly and prances around in his underpants a lot?
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2011, 06:13:08 PM
Do you suppose that, in private, Rex Church is really giggly and prances around in his underpants a lot?
Speaking as a former Satanist, anything less would be disappointing.
Satanism. :lulz:
That is the very model of using the mainstream as a point of reference, and then pretending that you're special. :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on April 22, 2011, 05:15:59 AM
Oshit, I re-read that link re: Rand and your right. Still, that dude had a (philosophical) hard-on for (about) her.
On your 2nd points, I agree actually. Many of my friends "hail satan" ironically.
It's really just the Laveyan's who act like Thelemites who I have a problem with (and it's the same problem). I've met one (count it, one) serious Satanist that I had any respect for. But that's because Rex Church is a bad ass, and made EsoZone that much better that year, by convincing the crowd (with photos, none the less) that he was building a Ragnarok Engine out of old Nazi German scrap tank steel in his basement:
Quotea 40,000 pound demon conjuring forge which integrates such disciplines as Tesla technology, black radionics, and ruin value.
Here's a picture of BEN MACK and REX CHURCH 'smiling' for the camera... (I heard that synapse blow out, btw)
(http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ben_and_rex.jpg)
:fnord: :lulz: :fnord:
Oh, gonna have fun with that.
I wish Ben Mack WOULD come back. I wasn't done with him.
Put a call-out to him in your sig, he'll be over in no time. Especially if it's something slagging his precious business.
OR do that very same thing at a board that's being trolled. :evil:
Oooh. B** M*** over at DiscordiaHibernia?
That's just mean.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 26, 2011, 02:34:26 PM
Oooh. B** M*** over at DiscordiaHibernia?
That's just mean.
With any luck at all, we can pile all of our refuse there. Ben Mack, Hugh, etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 02:48:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 26, 2011, 02:34:26 PM
Oooh. B** M*** over at DiscordiaHibernia?
That's just mean.
With any luck at all, we can pile all of our refuse there. Ben Mack, Hugh, etc.
OH MY ERIS YOU SAID HIS NAME! :eek:
Quote from: Nigel on April 26, 2011, 03:45:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 02:48:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 26, 2011, 02:34:26 PM
Oooh. B** M*** over at DiscordiaHibernia?
That's just mean.
With any luck at all, we can pile all of our refuse there. Ben Mack, Hugh, etc.
OH MY ERIS YOU SAID HIS NAME! :eek:
Hugh?
:omg:
:lulz: I love you spags.
Is it true if you say his name three times in a dark bathroom bumps will appear on your head?
Quote from: Khara on April 26, 2011, 07:54:08 PM
Is it true if you say his name three times in a dark bathroom bumps will appear on your head?
No, but he will appear behind you to take your soul and sell you shit.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 26, 2011, 07:58:58 PM
Quote from: Khara on April 26, 2011, 07:54:08 PM
Is it true if you say his name three times in a dark bathroom bumps will appear on your head?
No, but he will appear behind you to take your soul and sell you shit.
Does he sell you shit before or after he takes your soul? That detail could be important in a court of law.
Not listed.
I could explain beliefs to you but then you would only end up understanding less.
You cant just say "Ben Mack" you have to put in "poker without cards is shit".
Quote from: Faust on May 16, 2011, 09:28:13 AM
You cant just say "Ben Mack" you have to put in "poker without cards is shit".
:omg:
ITT, Faust tests.
Dude, that's like PMing The MGT! :scared:
Quote from: Faust on May 16, 2011, 09:28:13 AM
You cant just say "Ben Mack" you have to put in "poker without cards is shit".
:x :x :x
Quote from: Felix on May 16, 2011, 09:19:34 AM
Not listed.
I could explain beliefs to you but then you would only end up understanding less.
How outlandish
:kingmeh:
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
:mittens:
Quote from: Felix on May 16, 2011, 09:19:34 AM
Not listed.
I could explain beliefs to you but then you would only end up understanding less.
Oh, look. He's all
mystical and shit.
Quote from: Felix on May 16, 2011, 09:19:34 AM
Not listed.
I could explain beliefs to you but then you would only end up understanding less.
I can honestly say we have never, EVER gotten a response like that before, cutting edge stuff there.
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AMI don't know what I REALLY believe in.
:mittens:
this means there's a chance you're a biped.
Good point. ECH, philosophical giant.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
:mittens:
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
You don't HAVE to, but why shouldn't you?
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 18, 2011, 05:28:09 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
You don't HAVE to, but why shouldn't you?
Well, I think I will, just in case the lightning elementals decide to attack me.
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
WTF is this LBRP I've been hearing about for ten years?
TO GOOGLE
............roffle?
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
If you are Orthodox then you have to get someone else to do it for you on the Sabbath. Not sure how many gentiles know the ritual though.
I believe Felix's beliefs are so original and outlandish, they will truly boggle my mind to the point I shall doubt everything I have ever thought I had known.
Also, I'm probably at least 7 years older than Lenin McCarthy and I still feel that way.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/religions.png)
Rollover text: "But to us there is only but one God, plus or minus one. --1 Corinthians 8:6±2"
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:13:45 AM
............roffle?
HEY STOP MOCKING MY BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:13:45 AM
............roffle?
HEY STOP MOCKING MY BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP DISRESPECTING MY BELIEF IN MOCKING YOUR BELIEFS!
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 18, 2011, 05:28:09 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
You don't HAVE to, but why shouldn't you?
how about because that would make it no better than anything else you just take on faith?
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
WTF is this LBRP I've been hearing about for ten years?
TO GOOGLE
I think it's pronounced "derp".
Also, I had to look it up too, and lol! The videos! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNJaXbblOo
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 03:33:35 PM
Quote from: Cainad on May 18, 2011, 03:28:39 PM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:13:45 AM
............roffle?
HEY STOP MOCKING MY BELIEFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP DISRESPECTING MY BELIEF IN MOCKING YOUR BELIEFS!
/EXCOMMUNICATION
/FREEDOM
/CAPSLOCK
Quote from: Nigel on May 18, 2011, 04:31:45 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
WTF is this LBRP I've been hearing about for ten years?
TO GOOGLE
I think it's pronounced "derp".
Also, I had to look it up too, and lol! The videos! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNJaXbblOo
sweet love of bumble bees
(capslock free, cain)
I think I heard Elfie, or however her name is spelled, do this on Paranormal State, and it was ridiculous then too.
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 06:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 18, 2011, 04:31:45 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
WTF is this LBRP I've been hearing about for ten years?
TO GOOGLE
I think it's pronounced "derp".
Also, I had to look it up too, and lol! The videos! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNJaXbblOo
sweet love of bumble bees
(capslock free, cain)
I think I heard Elfie, or however her name is spelled, do this on Paranormal State, and it was ridiculous then too.
There's another one with a guy in a field that is pure :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on May 18, 2011, 07:07:27 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 06:40:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 18, 2011, 04:31:45 PM
Quote from: Nadezhda on May 18, 2011, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
WTF is this LBRP I've been hearing about for ten years?
TO GOOGLE
I think it's pronounced "derp".
Also, I had to look it up too, and lol! The videos! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNJaXbblOo
sweet love of bumble bees
(capslock free, cain)
I think I heard Elfie, or however her name is spelled, do this on Paranormal State, and it was ridiculous then too.
There's another one with a guy in a field that is pure :lulz:
This one is my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOw_cEsXUDw&feature=related
LMAO, forgot about this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/user/mardukite
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 08:24:30 PM
LMAO, forgot about this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/user/mardukite
What in the hell is this shit? Is it a joke? :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 08:24:30 PM
LMAO, forgot about this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/user/mardukite
I am doing this: :x IRL
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 08:24:30 PM
LMAO, forgot about this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/user/mardukite
I am going to kill you.
Quote from: Nigel on May 18, 2011, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 18, 2011, 08:24:30 PM
LMAO, forgot about this guy....
http://www.youtube.com/user/mardukite
What in the hell is this shit? Is it a joke? :lol:
I came across him a while ago. He's like a Sumerian Necronomicon (forreallyrealznecronomiconlol) Luciferian Druid or some weird shit like that.
If I was Sumerian Necronomicon Druid Lucifer I would choose a better spokesman than ah..... yeah......
Between them, HP Lovecraft, Simon Levenda and William Stukeley have a lot to answer for.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on May 18, 2011, 05:28:09 AM
Quote from: Canis latrans securis on May 18, 2011, 05:26:33 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 18, 2011, 02:10:20 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 17, 2011, 07:20:34 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on May 17, 2011, 11:52:59 AM
As an utterly confused teenager still in the process of developing what hopefully will be a somewhat consistent worldview at some point in the future, I don't know what I REALLY believe in. But I must admit that I find this whole science thing very appealing.
Just remember, good science isn't about belief... its about the best current ideas based on evidence. :)
Also, the best thing about science is you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
So I don't have to do the lesser banishing ritual of the pentagram every time I turn on the lights?
You don't HAVE to, but why shouldn't you?
A) Do you want to do it? Do you enjoy it?
and
B) Does it make things FABULOUS?
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 19, 2011, 02:53:17 PM
B) Does it make things FABULOUS?
This is an incredibly important question. It should
always be the second question asked, right after "will it kill me?"
Quote from: Cain on May 19, 2011, 07:28:32 AM
Between them, HP Lovecraft, Simon Levenda and William Stukeley have a lot to answer for.
Ain't that the truth.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 19, 2011, 02:55:22 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 19, 2011, 02:53:17 PM
B) Does it make things FABULOUS?
This is an incredibly important question. It should always be the second question asked, right after "will it kill me?"
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
(http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16800000/Donnie-Darko-Quote-donnie-darko-16809967-1280-800.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on May 19, 2011, 07:28:32 AM
Between them, HP Lovecraft, Simon Levenda and William Stukeley have a lot to answer for.
Lovecraft has the excuse that he was quite clear about the fact he was writing fiction.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 19, 2011, 05:45:53 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 19, 2011, 07:28:32 AM
Between them, HP Lovecraft, Simon Levenda and William Stukeley have a lot to answer for.
Lovecraft has the excuse that he was quite clear about the fact he was writing fiction.
So was Saul of Tarsus :lulz: