Principia Discordia

This isn't finished, but it's as much as I feel like writing right now.


I don't talk about my religion much. For one thing, I don't want to have to explain it... it's complicated. For another thing, I don't relish getting caught in the explain/justify/defend cycle that happens so often, especially when talking to a social group that is rich in devout atheists. I find that in situations like that, atheists become evangelistic, as if they're on a mission to pry religion from every mind they encounter. I don't like the judgment, the condemnation, or the derision – it's easier to never bring it up at all, and let them assume that I'm one of their fold.

One of the reasons I don't like being in a position where I'm asked to defend my religion is because I find that religion is indefensible. It's not logical; more like humor than it is like love, it defies being pinned down with algorithms and intellectualism. Much of what is funny is subjective, makes no sense, and cannot be predicted, and to me, that's what religion is like. Not only can I not explain or justify why I have it, I don't even care to try. No, really. I don't. It's not something I take great comfort in, because I'm not a believer in a benevolent god. It's just something I have faith in... faith, which cannot be logically defended. Something pretty absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Friends confronted with the fact that I have religion are often disbelieving, then derisive. "You don't really believe in that, do you? I mean, you don't believe that it's really for real real, right?"

Truth?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it's metaphor, sometimes it's an exercise of the mind, and sometimes it's really for real real, something that came with me from my ancestors. Something so pants-wettingly old that I'd be seriously disrespecting my ancestors if I thumbed my nose at believing in it. It's as real as their existences, as their bone fragments littering the desert in Jerome and their skeletons being slowly permeated by minerals in Conwy, Echota, and Mombasa. If I imagine something, does it exist? Well... of course! Sort of.

The simplest way for me to explain why I have religion is to say that it's because I've decided to. I like it.

Fuck you, Kai.

"some things are so serious, they can only be joked about." -Neils Bohr

If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you undermine your Toof Faerie.

And, fixed.

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

I understand what you're saying, but I can't get around the problem of religion just being a mind-bendingly stupid concept.

on the other hand, I get the feeling that alot of people here are using the word "religion" when what they mean is "grid that I sometimes impose because I enjoy it and find it occasionally useful in my pursuit of higher understanding of the universe and human nature but which I realize deep-down is nothing more than a grid".

I mean, if it's a religion, that means that you literally believe in divine supernatural entities.

     I once had a good friend, who told me, early on in his Fatherhood he'd let his daughter know there is no god, and I was bummed. I understood he was a militant no-godder, but I thought it was lame to snub out a kids potential like that. My first thought was, how can anyone look at the physical world and not feel that there's more going on than  what's covered in 'science monthly'? Call it what you want, nature and it's predecessors rock. Being open to that and applying what comes to you as you go ought always to be an option. As much as established "religion" (i.e. Catholicism, Buddhism) is annoying, Atheists are fucking lame.

    My brother also told his kids there is no Santa, because he's some kind of neo-Christian. Again, I had to think - just because "you people" tried to severe all ties between man and the cosmos way back when?!...

    'C'mon! OR KILL ME!

Quote from: Dirtytime on March 08, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I can't get around the problem of religion just being a mind-bendingly stupid concept.

on the other hand, I get the feeling that alot of people here are using the word "religion" when what they mean is "grid that I sometimes impose because I enjoy it and find it occasionally useful in my pursuit of higher understanding of the universe and human nature but which I realize deep-down is nothing more than a grid".

I mean, if it's a religion, that means that you literally believe in divine supernatural entities.

Would you consider classical Theravada Buddhism a religion?

I've never really seen this place as a militant atheist outpost.  I think its only maybe half atheist, and the attacks tend to be directed more at orthodoxy.

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 08, 2009, 08:42:44 PM
    I once had a good friend, who told me, early on in his Fatherhood he'd let his daughter know there is no god, and I was bummed. I understood he was a militant no-godder, but I thought it was lame to snub out a kids potential like that. My first thought was, how can anyone look at the physical world and not feel that there's more going on than  what's covered in 'science monthly'? Call it what you want, nature and it's predecessors rock. Being open to that and applying what comes to you as you go ought always to be an option. As much as established "religion" (i.e. Catholicism, Buddhism) is annoying, Atheists are fucking lame.

    My brother also told his kids there is no Santa, because he's some kind of neo-Christian. Again, I had to think - just because "you people" tried to severe all ties between man and the cosmos way back when?!...

    'C'mon! OR KILL ME!

I grew up not believing in God or Santa Claus, and I don't feel like my potential was snubbed at all. Anyway, it's not like I didn't make up my own stuff to believe in - I had a very active imagination. In fact, you could argue that I was more imaginative because I was forced to be creative in my make-believe.

Anyway, I try not to talk about my thoughts on religion, largely out of fear of making people feel like Nigel does. I don't want to make anybody feel judged or defensive.

If I ever have kids Im going to tell them that there is a God... and the fucker is out to destroy everything they hold dear, so you better all learn to fight back
:argh!:
lets not even go into what Im going to tell them about "Santa Claws"

Atheists are the world's dumbest optimists.

Yes, there is a God.  God demands your worship.  Why?  Because he eats it.  If a God doesn't get prayer, it dies (which is why the Greek gods aren't still turning into bulls and fucking young ladies).  The main course, of course, happens when you die, and God eats your soul. 

The REAL joke is on the atheists, of course.  Since no god eats them, they just turn into this pathetic corpse that shuffles in to the office/shop/kitchen every day, forever.

I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

WOW, YOU'RE SO DEEP!  CAN I STUDY AT YOUR FEET AND LEARN SOLIPSISM?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!  :boring:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:29:22 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

WOW, YOU'RE SO DEEP!  CAN I STUDY AT YOUR FEET AND LEARN SOLIPSISM?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!  :boring:

:golfclap:

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:33:27 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:29:22 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

WOW, YOU'RE SO DEEP!  CAN I STUDY AT YOUR FEET AND LEARN SOLIPSISM?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!  :boring:

:golfclap:

But what are you saying?  Golf clap can, by your standards, mean any fucking thing.

Out with it, man!  Speak up!  Use small words, though.  Those shouldn't be able to mean as many things as bigger words, I'm hoping.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:35:56 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:33:27 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:29:22 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

WOW, YOU'RE SO DEEP!  CAN I STUDY AT YOUR FEET AND LEARN SOLIPSISM?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!  :boring:

:golfclap:

But what are you saying?  Golf clap can, by your standards, mean any fucking thing.

Out with it, man!  Speak up!  Use small words, though.  Those shouldn't be able to mean as many things as bigger words, I'm hoping.

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/333/kittenscups.jpg)

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:39:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:35:56 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:33:27 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:29:22 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

WOW, YOU'RE SO DEEP!  CAN I STUDY AT YOUR FEET AND LEARN SOLIPSISM?

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!  :boring:

:golfclap:

But what are you saying?  Golf clap can, by your standards, mean any fucking thing.

Out with it, man!  Speak up!  Use small words, though.  Those shouldn't be able to mean as many things as bigger words, I'm hoping.

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/333/kittenscups.jpg)

Sorry you can't defend your ideas, retard.  I should have realized that the moment I saw your drivel concerning that Zen bullshit.

Quote from: Kai on March 08, 2009, 08:43:52 PM

Quote from: Dirtytime on March 08, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I can't get around the problem of religion just being a mind-bendingly stupid concept.

on the other hand, I get the feeling that alot of people here are using the word "religion" when what they mean is "grid that I sometimes impose because I enjoy it and find it occasionally useful in my pursuit of higher understanding of the universe and human nature but which I realize deep-down is nothing more than a grid".

I mean, if it's a religion, that means that you literally believe in divine supernatural entities.

Would you consider classical Theravada Buddhism a religion?

I'm leaning towards "yes" with the caveat that it seems to believe in the existence of deities but to not consider their influence as paramount, or even on par with worldly influences. It's always seemed to me as though buddhist texts include talk of deities because people were always naturally predisposed to believe in them but that those deities aren't actually relevant to the core teachings of buddhism (in my limited understanding).

so "yes" in a strict-interpretation sense, but "no" in the sense that theravada buddhism encourages people to use their senses and their power of reason to explain phenomenons rather than faith in the absurd improbable unknowable.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM
People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

If people mean things, what do you mean?  And no, words are just oversimplified (mis)understandings of reality.  Cats in cups

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 09, 2009, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM
People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

If people mean things, what do you mean?  And no, words are just oversimplified (mis)understandings of reality.  Cats in cups

Argle bargle schwartz.

Or words to that effect.

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 09, 2009, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM
People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

If people mean things, what do you mean?  And no, words are just oversimplified (mis)understandings of reality.  Cats in cups

That too.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 02:34:51 AM

Quote from: Pope Lecherous on March 09, 2009, 02:01:06 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM
People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

If people mean things, what do you mean?  And no, words are just oversimplified (mis)understandings of reality.  Cats in cups

That too.

Sorry, I can't understand you.  Words have no meaning.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 09, 2009, 02:56:25 AM
I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Unless you want to "prove" some mushy-headed crap, of course.

mushy headed crap + schwartz is giving me dirty thoughts

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 09, 2009, 03:07:56 AM
mushy headed crap + schwartz is giving me dirty thoughts

wut

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 02:53:59 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 09, 2009, 02:56:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Capitalist narrative, feminism and objectivism
John la Fournier
Department of Gender Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of rubicon

If one examines feminism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Lacanist obscurity or conclude that class, ironically, has significance. The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is not situationism, but presituationism.

"Art is part of the meaninglessness of language," says Foucault; however, according to McElwaine[1] , it is not so much art that is part of the meaninglessness of language, but rather the genre, and eventually the paradigm, of art. It could be said that in Four Rooms, Tarantino analyses feminism; in Reservoir Dogs he deconstructs neoconceptualist dematerialism. Porter[2] holds that we have to choose between feminism and predialectic capitalist theory.

"Society is intrinsically meaningless," says Lyotard. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a postconstructive paradigm of narrative that includes consciousness as a paradox. Bataille suggests the use of capitalist situationism to deconstruct hierarchy.

Thus, the dialectic, and some would say the collapse, of feminism intrinsic to Tarantino's Jackie Brown emerges again in Four Rooms, although in a more mythopoetical sense. The primary theme of la Fournier's[3] critique of the postconstructive paradigm of narrative is the absurdity, and subsequent fatal flaw, of precultural sexual identity.

It could be said that the premise of feminism states that the purpose of the reader is social comment, given that Sartre's analysis of structuralist discourse is invalid. Many constructivisms concerning Lacanist obscurity exist.

However, in La Dolce Vita, Fellini examines postdialectic feminism; in Amarcord, however, he affirms Lacanist obscurity. An abundance of desituationisms concerning the difference between class and reality may be discovered.

In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a that includes truth as a whole. The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is the role of the poet as writer.
2. Fellini and Lacanist obscurity

If one examines textual materialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the postconstructive paradigm of narrative or conclude that expression is a product of communication. Thus, the premise of the presemioticist paradigm of narrative suggests that reality is used to reinforce archaic perceptions of society, but only if art is interchangeable with sexuality; if that is not the case, Sontag's model of Lacanist obscurity is one of "Marxist capitalism", and thus part of the genre of art. Derrida uses the term 'the postconstructive paradigm of narrative' to denote not narrative, as Sartre would have it, but neonarrative.

It could be said that Derrida promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to read sexual identity. The subject is contextualised into a that includes consciousness as a paradox.

Therefore, Lacan uses the term 'the postconstructive paradigm of narrative' to denote the economy, and therefore the defining characteristic, of dialectic class. If feminism holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and the posttextual paradigm of context.

But the subject is interpolated into a that includes truth as a reality. Several demodernisms concerning feminism exist.

1. McElwaine, B. S. (1975) Reading Lacan: Feminism in the works of Tarantino. Loompanics

2. Porter, M. ed. (1989) Lacanist obscurity and feminism. And/Or Press

3. la Fournier, R. Z. (1992) Discourses of Failure: Feminism in the works of Fellini. Yale University Press

Three things:

1.  Objectivism?  :lol:

2.  Link?

3.  You're a dumbfuck.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 03:24:18 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 02:53:59 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

So...you're calling everyone on this board a fundie?

Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary. Thats the whole concept of a symbol, its something that evokes something else. In speech, words and phrases evoke concepts. Lines on a paper evoke sounds or concepts.

However, anything past that is just wandering into barstool territory.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 03:28:09 AM

... paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...paradigm...

The nigga that wrote this needs a thesaurus.  Damn right we are fundies.  If you dont respect unborn rights, smoke reefer, and voted for obama YOU DONT BELONG HERE unamerican.

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 01:18:16 AM
This isn't finished, but it's as much as I feel like writing right now.


I don't talk about my religion much. For one thing, I don't want to have to explain it... it's complicated. For another thing, I don't relish getting caught in the explain/justify/defend cycle that happens so often, especially when talking to a social group that is rich in devout atheists. I find that in situations like that, atheists become evangelistic, as if they're on a mission to pry religion from every mind they encounter. I don't like the judgment, the condemnation, or the derision – it's easier to never bring it up at all, and let them assume that I'm one of their fold.

One of the reasons I don't like being in a position where I'm asked to defend my religion is because I find that religion is indefensible. It's not logical; more like humor than it is like love, it defies being pinned down with algorithms and intellectualism. Much of what is funny is subjective, makes no sense, and cannot be predicted, and to me, that's what religion is like. Not only can I not explain or justify why I have it, I don't even care to try. No, really. I don't. It's not something I take great comfort in, because I'm not a believer in a benevolent god. It's just something I have faith in... faith, which cannot be logically defended. Something pretty absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Friends confronted with the fact that I have religion are often disbelieving, then derisive. "You don't really believe in that, do you? I mean, you don't believe that it's really for real real, right?"

Truth?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it's metaphor, sometimes it's an exercise of the mind, and sometimes it's really for real real, something that came with me from my ancestors. Something so pants-wettingly old that I'd be seriously disrespecting my ancestors if I thumbed my nose at believing in it. It's as real as their existences, as their bone fragments littering the desert in Jerome and their skeletons being slowly permeated by minerals in Conwy, Echota, and Mombasa. If I imagine something, does it exist? Well... of course! Sort of.

The simplest way for me to explain why I have religion is to say that it's because I've decided to. I like it.

Fuck you, Kai.

My name is Torodung, and I approve of this rant.

I too come with "religion." Though religion is a political term. What I really come with is Faith, and few around me seem to share this particular defect. Perhaps you share it as well. It's viral.

A statement that "there is no god" is as much an statement of faith as claiming that there is. Period. If we really want to discard faith, I think the non-dick description of that belief would be "agnostic." "Atheists" are just using that name to troll "theists."

I spent a while hanging out in alt.atheism on Usenet, and after a while, I had made friends and had respect. Fundies troll that group all the time, but after the hubbub had died down, I found that there were quite a few atheists who were willing to chat.

They just didn't want to chat about God. They were a-theist, not anti-theist.

So don't worry about it too much. We can just tilt windmills with our oversized, armored dicks in righteous protest. Fucking windmills. I HATE THEM.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 03:28:09 AM

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 09, 2009, 02:56:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Capitalist narrative, feminism and objectivism
John la Fournier
Department of Gender Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of rubicon

Hey there. I'll buy the books if I want to read that. Your attempts to imitate a dark ages monk, copying scripture to ward off the darkness, are lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

I spent years in a sweaty dungeon with deconstructionists. They had razed the English department, and locked themselves in with a poster of Derrida and the collected works of John Cage. By the time we were done, only I remained. Everyone else had gone to pieces.

Don't go to pieces on us, eh?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 03:30:04 AM
Three things:

1.  Objectivism?  :lol:

2.  Link?

3.  You're a dumbfuck.

Actually, I think it is Structuralism. I haven't seen shite like that for years.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 03:24:18 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 02:53:59 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.

Yeah, sort of like how it would be ridiculous to bring up being bisexual or polyamorous in a social group full of narrow-minded Fundies.

Right?

I'm not saying it would be ridiculous merely to do so. In fact, it could be quite entertaining and entirely worthwhile.

I'm just saying it would silly to expect the Fundies to not act like Fundies.

Yeah, that was kind of my point too.

Quote from: Torodung on March 09, 2009, 05:43:25 AM
My name is Torodung, and I approve of this rant.

I too come with "religion." Though religion is a political term. What I really come with is Faith, and few around me seem to share this particular defect. Perhaps you share it as well. It's viral.

A statement that "there is no god" is as much an statement of faith as claiming that there is. Period. If we really want to discard faith, I think the non-dick description of that belief would be "agnostic." "Atheists" are just using that name to troll "theists."

I spent a while hanging out in alt.atheism on Usenet, and after a while, I had made friends and had respect. Fundies troll that group all the time, but after the hubbub had died down, I found that there were quite a few atheists who were willing to chat.

They just didn't want to chat about God. They were a-theist, not anti-theist.

So don't worry about it too much. We can just tilt windmills with our oversized, armored dicks in righteous protest. Fucking windmills. I HATE THEM.

:lulz:

I think we may be on the same wavelength, dung-boy.

I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

I'm kind of confused, like I'm missing some part of the conversation. The OP more or less said, "I'm spiritual, and I don't feel the need to discuss it.". Then here, a few posts later in the thread, you say, "If I'm not supposed to talk about my spirituality here, I'm going to quit."

But two weeks ago, you were kind of indignant at the suggestion that you not flame someone. because it's fun to flame people. You felt like people were telling you how to act, and it pissed you off!

and here, you seem frustrated that this board isn't an ideal spot for discussions about certain things (spirituality for example), and I can see why,  but you're also the one leading the charge sometimes. Maybe not about religious beliefs, specifically. But like, alright, ECH for example is a pretty hardlined atheist. I've never seen him NOT quip when people talk about their relationship with imaginary superbeings  :lol:. So like, should he not do that?

I'm not saying this in a judgmental way, or trying to go after you Nigel. I'm just trying to reconcile what tone exactly you'd like this board to have.

Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.

But it gets a lot less likely.

Religion and Faith are like crack cocaine and meth. It might be possible to use a little of these substances to no harmful effect but the fact is, a lot of people end up strung out on them, complete fucking mushbrains and, given that there are no real tangible benefits, I don't, personally, see the point of taking the risk.

Why fuck around with something as potentially brain damaging as religion? What exactly is the benefit that makes you think the risk is justified? What's so great about occasionally believing in the tooth fairy?

Don't bother answering that. I'm really not that interested. Just trying to clarify my position - that's what I wonder about.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.

you mean there are words things that don't annoy you?
:lol:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 09, 2009, 03:33:34 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 03:30:32 PM
Religion. Faith. These are two words that annoy me.

Yes, it's possible to use one or both of these, in moderation, and still remain a cool, objective, self-aware, critical thinker.

you mean there are words things that don't annoy you?
:lol:

titties and beer and ... yeah, that's about it.

To me, there seems a big difference between irreligious and anti-religious. That is, my interpretation of Discordianism seems to promote a 'Think For Yourself, Don't Just Believe the Crazy Guy on the Pulpit" sort of vibe, while Atheism seems to promote a "There is no God, STFU Religious Person" sort of position. While some atheists may be Discordian, and some Discordians may be atheists, I really don't think that the two are even close to the same thing.

Atheism doesn't require thinking for yourself (though if you think for yourself, you may come to decide that you personally don't believe in a God). Atheism only requires an individual to make some positive statement about the non-existence of Deity in any form. A positive statement that something we cannot measure does not exist.... or a statement that something we can make a formal logic statement about must be true. Yet both of these positions require a faith in a well known untrusted source, the human neurological system. This seems as much of a stretch as the faith a religious person puts in a text or tradition.

If a person wants to believe in whatever, we can disagree with their worldview. We can find faults in their system of belief. Yet, surely, if we were to turn that same critical eye on ourselves, we would find flaws and faults in whatever perception of reality we personally hold. Who is to say that ours is less damaging or damning than theirs? In fact, if we think that we're in a better position than "THEM", aren't we putting ourselves in the position of potentially becoming a Cosmic Schmuck? Converting people, or deriding people because they don't agree with you, seems to fly in the face of much of the PD and even the writings that are generally popular here . "Thinking for yourself" might mean you disagree with many other people that Think For Themselves.  However, that's a far better sign that we're doing something right, than if we all think we "Think for Ourselves" and then agree 100% with each other.

Me, personally, I tend to see religions and belief systems as models that I can play in or not play in. However, I admit that is a limited view. By holding that position, I will probably never again have the really real perception changes that someone who really does believe in that system will. Sometimes I envy that. Sometimes it seems like I would benefit from having some system of beliefs that I held, personally, as true for me. My shrapnel and ruts and prison bars and submarine port windows, though... make such a thing very unlikely for me. But if it works for Nigel, then good for Nigel!

I would agree with ECH that PD.com seems to be a bit harsh when dealing with the subject of religions, especially religions that take their unprovable ground rules too seriously.  That's just the nature of these forums, and the general attitude of the majority of people who post here.

Other forums have different attitudes.  For example, EB&G has multiple posts on the Tarot, various pagan faiths, et al; but they are also anti-MW, so you tend not to get into fluff all that much.

Please believe me when I say I'm not telling you to bugger off to another board... I like having you around.  But if you honestly feel the need to talk about formalized spirituality, then I would suggest you head over there.

Let's say for argument's sake that PD.COM is Atheist Central, so what?  Why should that keep you from talking about something you believe in?  I mean, I'm certainly in the minority here when it comes to my position on drugs and drug policy but I'm not about to let that keep me from talking about it. 

Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?

It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.

I personally would love to see the anti-religion crusade left to the Pastafarians, as their joke religion is actually designed for it. I take my joke religion more seriously than that, personally.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 05:01:04 PM
Let's say for argument's sake that PD.COM is Atheist Central, so what?  Why should that keep you from talking about something you believe in?  I mean, I'm certainly in the minority here when it comes to my position on drugs and drug policy but I'm not about to let that keep me from talking about it. 

That's not the point of the OP, which answers those questions BTW.

My follow-up posts are more specific to this board, while the OP wasn't. My follow-up posts are perhaps more of an appeal to my peers and friends on the board to reconsider whether they want to spend so much time deriding those of us who choose to have faith.

I, personally, am rather prejudiced against Christians. I do not, however, devote much time (I do enjoy it on occasion) to mocking or "debunking" them. It's not my bag, but I also don't really want to alienate the nice ones just because their illogical indefensible unliteral truth is different from mine.

Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 02:18:39 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

I'm kind of confused, like I'm missing some part of the conversation. The OP more or less said, "I'm spiritual, and I don't feel the need to discuss it.". Then here, a few posts later in the thread, you say, "If I'm not supposed to talk about my spirituality here, I'm going to quit."

But two weeks ago, you were kind of indignant at the suggestion that you not flame someone. because it's fun to flame people. You felt like people were telling you how to act, and it pissed you off!

and here, you seem frustrated that this board isn't an ideal spot for discussions about certain things (spirituality for example), and I can see why,  but you're also the one leading the charge sometimes. Maybe not about religious beliefs, specifically. But like, alright, ECH for example is a pretty hardlined atheist. I've never seen him NOT quip when people talk about their relationship with imaginary superbeings  :lol:. So like, should he not do that?

I'm not saying this in a judgmental way, or trying to go after you Nigel. I'm just trying to reconcile what tone exactly you'd like this board to have.

What's so confusing about saying "if this place turns into something I don't like, I'll go away"?

I also said,

Quoteyet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too.

If I was told that I could not make fun of religion, it'd make me toodle off in my trusty Huff as well. That's not what I'm saying. I'm verbally exploring something that I've noticed seems to be an increasing trend here. It's come up in conversation with other... shall we call them "Discordians of faith". It's a topic of interest to me. It's not like my dislike of evangelism has ever been a secret, Cram. That includes Atheist evangelism. Fuck, I married an Atheist once upon a time. Fucker was in-fucking-suffererable, both as an Atheist and after he converted to Christianity (Fucking True Believers HAVE to believe in something, hard, ALL THE TIME, and they want to MAKE YOU BELIEVE IT TOO...)

:lulz:

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:05:49 PM

Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?

It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.

I'll go along with that.

Because for the most part (for me), the religious/spiritual experience is a personal one.  That moment of gnosis can't be explained or discussed, it can only be felt (Cf: The Zen act of pointing to it; "The Tao that can be told," et al).  

Plus, if you are adhering to a codified system that orbits around the spiritual experience, you are probably going to encounter several ideas or concepts that cannot be proven (hence, the faith bit), or that are more-or-less arbitrary (Artemis or Diana?).  


So it would seem that to try to discuss it in a forum like this has at least two directions to it:

1) Speaking about the unspeakable.
2) Defending the indefensible.



For example, if you started a thread about the Tarot, it would fairly quickly split off into discussions of free will v. predetermination, "Quantum", Law of Fives, psychology, James Randi, "psychic" abilities, Madgjeeek, and fraud... and almost nothing about what it would mean to get a Ten of Swords reversed in th third position.

Putting aside "religion" which is a whole nother can of worms, the term "faith" is another one that is just too broad and open to personal interpretation that you can't really tar everyone with the same brush. As a general rule I will mercilessly mock people who profess to having "faith" in a god-based scenario but there are exceptions.

If you'd used your first post on this board to say "Hi I'm Nigel and I have faith in the risen christ or the mercy of allah or whatever" then I'd have jumped on your case for the lulz. But I know you better than that now so whatever it is you mean by "faith" I'm pretty confident it isn't the same thing a "faithfool" would mean by it. You just don't strike me as the kind of person who would jump off a cliff cos the guy in the big hat told them they should.

So what the hell is "faith"? I'm not stupid enough to completely discount the possibility of life after death or reincarnation or whatever, in fact I remain quietly optimistic that maybe there is and I'll die and then pop up in some kind of afterlife or whatever. It's a much more comfortable scenario to look forward to. On the other hand there's a vast gulf of difference between hoping for the best and believing it with all my heart and soul - IMO it's just way too unlikely for me to have that kind of faith in. In all probability when my brain dies so will I.

The reason I'm down on that kind of faith is because once you have it you become subject to manipulation by the self appointed governors of your chosen deity and that's shaky territory in my view. That's the real lemming-scenario and, as far as I'm concerned, the cons outweigh the pros being that the pros seem to be largely centred around individuals feeling a bit less scared of the grim reaper and the cons, especially when two or more religious ideologies collide, can be strikingly messy.

At best faith is a crutch - a little shot of psychological morphine. At worst its an excuse to perpetrate all manner of horrors.

Nigel, have you ever read Kierkegaard?  He was a Christian existentialist who also claimed faith was essentially irrational and thus cannot be rationally argued for.

From the book I am reading on him:

QuoteSince it is impossible for us to work out what we need to do to become enlightened,we have two choices: to remain forever in a life of complete ignorance and uncertainty about what we ought to believe or how we should live, or alternatively we can choose to take 'the leap into absurdity', in other words, a 'leap to faith' in which we adopt the utterly irrational belief in an eternal, unchanging God who can take form in time and who can enlighten us if we passionately and whole-heartedly commit ourselves to him. Kierkegaard considers faith to be the most important of all human potentials, because he believes that an individual can only reach complete selfhood through faith.

To be one's true self, Kierkegaard asserted the necessity of becoming what he termed a 'single individual'. The single individual is central to all areas of his thought. At its highest level of evolution the single individual stands alone before God and is answerable first and foremost to God. According to Kierkegaard, it is only when a human realises that he stands naked before God that he becomes a fully fledged human being. To be a 'single individual' requires passionate self-commitment to a single purpose in life. Kierkegaard explains, 'Purity of heart is to will one thing.' 'Every call from God is always addressed to one person, the single individual. Precisely in this lies the difficulty and the examination, that the one who is called must stand alone, walk alone, alone with God' (JP,I,p.100).

As a 'single individual', my true self, I create and choose my own values and way of life irrespective of whether or not it harmonises with the society in which I live. Total commitment to the fundamental path that I have freely chosen in life is the key feature of this state of consciousness. This lends a sense of cohesiveness and integrity to my existence, for now my actions are a genuine expression of what I really want to be doing with my existence.

There is a lot more to it than that, but themes of individualism, faith and choosing ones own cause in life are central to his numerous works.  He's also very funny.  Going by your OP, you may like him.

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:25:00 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:05:49 PM

Quote from: K-Bitch on March 09, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
I think I am missing something, but as that happens often here, I'm not truly surprised. 

Is the thinking here ITT that if we admit we have beliefs, faith, a spiritual path, however you choose to term it, then we will be ridiculed by the regular members here or the all to frequent trolls?

It's certainly been my experience, yes. And a lot of people here spend a lot of time railing against religion.

I'll go along with that.

Because for the most part (for me), the religious/spiritual experience is a personal one.  That moment of gnosis can't be explained or discussed, it can only be felt (Cf: The Zen act of pointing to it; "The Tao that can be told," et al).  

When I studied religious experiences, one of the key components of such an experience was its ineffability.

Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

I think the other reason that it isn't discussed here much is because of the freedom people have here to post what they want.  I know that sounds like a paradox, but hear me out.

Let's say a person here posts their belief in the Cosmic Turtle, and let's say that there are 5 other people who agree, and they start a thread discussing the Great Carapace, or whatever.

But then, one or two people counter with, "What is this horseshit!?"

The Turtlites are free to post what they will, and so are the doubters.  No one's going to stop them.

But now, they have to defend their positions, which (as noted above) are indefensible, almost by definition.  Short of igoring the doubters completely, any further discussion becomes impossible; and even then, they'll have to skip over posts filled with mockery by the two doubters.

See what I mean?

Quote from: Cain on March 09, 2009, 05:37:03 PM
Nigel, have you ever read Kierkegaard?  He was a Christian existentialist who also claimed faith was essentially irrational and thus cannot be rationally argued for.

From the book I am reading on him:

QuoteSince it is impossible for us to work out what we need to do to become enlightened,we have two choices: to remain forever in a life of complete ignorance and uncertainty about what we ought to believe or how we should live, or alternatively we can choose to take 'the leap into absurdity', in other words, a 'leap to faith' in which we adopt the utterly irrational belief in an eternal, unchanging God who can take form in time and who can enlighten us if we passionately and whole-heartedly commit ourselves to him. Kierkegaard considers faith to be the most important of all human potentials, because he believes that an individual can only reach complete selfhood through faith.

To be one's true self, Kierkegaard asserted the necessity of becoming what he termed a 'single individual'. The single individual is central to all areas of his thought. At its highest level of evolution the single individual stands alone before God and is answerable first and foremost to God. According to Kierkegaard, it is only when a human realises that he stands naked before God that he becomes a fully fledged human being. To be a 'single individual' requires passionate self-commitment to a single purpose in life. Kierkegaard explains, 'Purity of heart is to will one thing.' 'Every call from God is always addressed to one person, the single individual. Precisely in this lies the difficulty and the examination, that the one who is called must stand alone, walk alone, alone with God' (JP,I,p.100).

As a 'single individual', my true self, I create and choose my own values and way of life irrespective of whether or not it harmonises with the society in which I live. Total commitment to the fundamental path that I have freely chosen in life is the key feature of this state of consciousness. This lends a sense of cohesiveness and integrity to my existence, for now my actions are a genuine expression of what I really want to be doing with my existence.

There is a lot more to it than that, but themes of individualism, faith and choosing ones own cause in life are central to his numerous works.  He's also very funny.  Going by your OP, you may like him.

No, I haven't, but I'll give him a whirl. Thanks!

I do agree that there's really very little point in discussing faith or religion with people who don't have it, because... well, it can't be explained. It doesn't make sense. It's the thing that I call unliteral truth. Either someone gets it or they don't, and I have no place in that process.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

Interesting you should say "art"... I consider one of my spiritual triggers to be music, both in playing and listening.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

Not really. But I do think it would be a good thing if more people didn't seem to feel the need to rely on it. More so with faith than language, art or technology.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
I do agree that there's really very little point in discussing faith or religion with people who don't have it, because... well, it can't be explained. It doesn't make sense. It's the thing that I call unliteral truth. Either someone gets it or they don't, and I have no place in that process.

Even further, they need to have the same kind of faith; the same unprovable conclusions.

I think faith can actually be pretty significant influences upon all 3 of those.  I mean, at a certain point, aren't we all relying upon "faith" at some point or another?  Faith that gravity works 100% of the time.  Faith that the sun is always going to be there.  I mean, if you boil it down, I'm not sure you can find anyone who doesn't have some kind of "faith-crutch"

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:44:07 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:42:27 PM
I do agree that there's really very little point in discussing faith or religion with people who don't have it, because... well, it can't be explained. It doesn't make sense. It's the thing that I call unliteral truth. Either someone gets it or they don't, and I have no place in that process.

Even further, they need to have the same kind of faith; the same unprovable conclusions.

Thats what I was getting at when I said "what is faith"

Like I'd go out on a limb here and say I totally believe in god. But what I mean by "god" has absolutely no relation to what probably most of the people in the world would mean by it. So I don't say it very often. It's much more simple and actually much more honest to tell such people I don't believe in god.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:42:27 PMNo, I haven't, but I'll give him a whirl. Thanks!

I do agree that there's really very little point in discussing faith or religion with people who don't have it, because... well, it can't be explained. It doesn't make sense. It's the thing that I call unliteral truth. Either someone gets it or they don't, and I have no place in that process.

Well I'm not sure discussing it is always worthless, I just think its very, very easy for it to turn into a "you're wrong" slanging match, which is both boring and predictable. 

No problems.  The book I culled the quote from is called "Kierkegaard" by Michael Watts and is considered as good an introduction as any (there is an excellent review here (http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/Kierkegaard.htm)) If you want the ebook, let me know and I'll set up the link.

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:40:32 PM
I think the other reason that it isn't discussed here much is because of the freedom people have here to post what they want.  I know that sounds like a paradox, but hear me out.

Let's say a person here posts their belief in the Cosmic Turtle, and let's say that there are 5 other people who agree, and they start a thread discussing the Great Carapace, or whatever.

But then, one or two people counter with, "What is this horseshit!?"

The Turtlites are free to post what they will, and so are the doubters.  No one's going to stop them.

But now, they have to defend their positions, which (as noted above) are indefensible, almost by definition.  Short of igoring the doubters completely, any further discussion becomes impossible; and even then, they'll have to skip over posts filled with mockery by the two doubters.

See what I mean?

All I'm saying is that when the "doubters", (I would not call them that, because they're not doubting anything... they're opposing it) do that, they're proselytizing just as much as when an evangelist christian pops into a conversation about evolution to try to "save" the unbelievers. Most people here would probably not very much enjoy posting on a board that was dominated by Creationists. I think that the overall tone of the board is shifting toward aggressive Atheism, and while the aggressive Atheists will probably be happy if that reduces participation by non-Atheists, I also think it will lead to the same sort of stultifying homogeneity over on Venganza, and a lot of interesting voices and perspectives could be... and, I think, are already being... lost.

And, I mean, if the end result is that POEE or EB&G gets all of the religious traffic, I guess that's just the way it goes. But the thing is, I don't really want to spend all my online time around a bunch of fucking fairy-tale worshippers, either. I like it here. I like the Atheists. I like the way they fucking rip shit apart and make fun of it. Yep. Contradictory? I don't think so. I just think it would be a damn shame if this board became totally dominated by the Atheist perspective. I like a nice balance. I would be the first to tear into some fuckhead who came in here trying to convert the Atheist contingent, and it would be nice if there was a little reciprocity.

It would be SWELL if the inevitable immediate response when someone mentions ritual or spirituality wasn't "WTF THAT SHIT IS ST00PID IT'S FOR SUPERSTITIOUS DUMBASSES WHO BELIEVE IN THE TOOF FAERIE AND NEED A CRUTCH STFU MORON!"

Ok, now I have to ask when the last time someone got ripped on just because they posted something coherent and intelligent about their faith, and not because either the post (or the poster) was just plain stupid.

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

Interesting you should say "art"... I consider one of my spiritual triggers to be music, both in playing and listening.

Yeah, me too... music is a big one for me, and so is sculpture and poetry.

I know people who don't get much out of art. I guess it doesn't make them feel anything. I've never had a single one tell me I'm an idiot for feeling it though...

No, but I bet they would if you claimed you were channeling Siva the World-Destroyer through your hands when you sculpt.


See the difference?

I truly disagree with the assessment that PD.COM is trending towards some kind of "aggressive Atheism" as you call it.  Yeah, PD.COM, itself, is a little aggressive by nature, but I've never seen any substantial, focused, and collective movement or flak against someone who talks about what they believe in.  I mean, we had that thread in the PD forum, people were all over the place with what they believed in and unless I'm mistaken it didn't turn into a flame fest.  I guess I just don't see it.  

The only time I've really felt it was when the SSOOKN got hit hard for talking about kabalah, and that was more than a year ago.

I guess maybe the better question would be, What doesn't get torn apart every now and again on PD.COM? 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I think faith can actually be pretty significant influences upon all 3 of those.  I mean, at a certain point, aren't we all relying upon "faith" at some point or another?  Faith that gravity works 100% of the time.  Faith that the sun is always going to be there.  I mean, if you boil it down, I'm not sure you can find anyone who doesn't have some kind of "faith-crutch"

*insert Rat spittle here* ;-)

I HOLD NO BELIEF in Gravity. I have had personal experiences all of my life which indicate that Shit falls towards the ground. Ever since I have been able to crawl, my personal experiences indicate that I am not likely to go flying off into outer space. At 9 months, did I believe in gravity? Of course not. Before Newton did people 'have faith in gravity'? No... the issue of 'flying off into outer space' didn't come up. There was simply the experiential data from most people on the planet which someone (Newton!!  :argh!:) observed and made some measurements on. One does not need faith in gravity or the sun or anything of the sort. We simply experience life and based on those experiences act. We do not need an 'assured expectation of things not beheld' we simply need experience and the ability to make decisions based off of experience. It seems ludicrous to think we need faith that we won't go spinning off the planet or faith that the Sun'll com up tomorrow, (bethca bottom dollar, that tomorrow, there'll be sun)

This, I think, is important. Without faith and belief, we can perhaps better discuss wonder and spirituality. We can still have critical thought and skepticism. In fact, it seems to me that if we can eject belief and faith, it makes it much easier to play with the universe of things, ordering them and disordering them at will.  I've experienced Gravity. I've also experienced invoking Therion. I don't have beliefs about either one, but I do allow those experiences to inform the decisions I make. For all the map/territory talk we do around here... it seems that sometimes its easy to forget the advice ourselves. All religions/belief systems/etc are maps and menus. Trying to discredit the meal by poking fun at the menu seems as silly as eating the menu and thinking it tastes like a Delmonico Steak; medium-rare.

If there is not faith or belief in things supernatural or things natural equally... if there is only the application of experience and the ability to think for oneself, based on one's own experiences... then it seems that discussions about Tarot or Magic or Spirituality could be held in a much more productive manner.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
I guess maybe the better question would be, What doesn't get torn apart every now and again on PD.COM? 

The Bring & Brag section seems fairly immune, for one.

Do some searching on "The Dreadful Hours" old posts...

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:57:40 PM
Ok, now I have to ask when the last time someone got ripped on just because they posted something coherent and intelligent about their faith, and not because either the post (or the poster) was just plain stupid.

A little went down in "Your Body" or whatever it was called, triggered by DK's loathing for Descartes' philosophy of mind/body duality. I've seen it a few times in regards to ritual and Tarot, and I've only been here a little over a year so I would guess that means it happens pretty often.

There's a vicious vein pops up from time to time against people who are not on the board... whenever pagans or Christians are mentioned. That alone is enough to make me leery of posting ANYTHING referencing my spiritual practice. And I have mentioned it in chat... and then spent the next hour trying to defend it. That's the part that bothers me, and as I mentioned in my OP, one of the main reasons I don't often mention it ANYWHERE... I don't like getting sucked into the explain/justify/defend cycle. It's like mentioning masturbation in a chat room full of Catholics. And you know, in some ways it's the same level of personal; for the most part, here or in chat, mentioning that you masturbate wouldn't be TMI, but it would be downright creepy and invasive if people then barraged you with questions about exactly how you masturbate, why you masturbate, and what you think you're getting anything out of it, and expressed their distain and revulsion for it, saying that people who masturbate are weak, misguided, etc.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:54:45 PM

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 05:40:32 PM
I think the other reason that it isn't discussed here much is because of the freedom people have here to post what they want.  I know that sounds like a paradox, but hear me out.

Let's say a person here posts their belief in the Cosmic Turtle, and let's say that there are 5 other people who agree, and they start a thread discussing the Great Carapace, or whatever.

But then, one or two people counter with, "What is this horseshit!?"

The Turtlites are free to post what they will, and so are the doubters.  No one's going to stop them.

But now, they have to defend their positions, which (as noted above) are indefensible, almost by definition.  Short of igoring the doubters completely, any further discussion becomes impossible; and even then, they'll have to skip over posts filled with mockery by the two doubters.

See what I mean?

All I'm saying is that when the "doubters", (I would not call them that, because they're not doubting anything... they're opposing it) do that, they're proselytizing just as much as when an evangelist christian pops into a conversation about evolution to try to "save" the unbelievers. Most people here would probably not very much enjoy posting on a board that was dominated by Creationists. I think that the overall tone of the board is shifting toward aggressive Atheism, and while the aggressive Atheists will probably be happy if that reduces participation by non-Atheists, I also think it will lead to the same sort of stultifying homogeneity over on Venganza, and a lot of interesting voices and perspectives could be... and, I think, are already being... lost.

And, I mean, if the end result is that POEE or EB&G gets all of the religious traffic, I guess that's just the way it goes. But the thing is, I don't really want to spend all my online time around a bunch of fucking fairy-tale worshippers, either. I like it here. I like the Atheists. I like the way they fucking rip shit apart and make fun of it. Yep. Contradictory? I don't think so. I just think it would be a damn shame if this board became totally dominated by the Atheist perspective. I like a nice balance. I would be the first to tear into some fuckhead who came in here trying to convert the Atheist contingent, and it would be nice if there was a little reciprocity.

It would be SWELL if the inevitable immediate response when someone mentions ritual or spirituality wasn't "WTF THAT SHIT IS ST00PID IT'S FOR SUPERSTITIOUS DUMBASSES WHO BELIEVE IN THE TOOF FAERIE AND NEED A CRUTCH STFU MORON!"

The fervent atheist is as much a follower of blind faith as the religious person he will rail against.

When I was doing the Baby Jesus Show I did a bit of networking with the rational objecter crowd in order to gain a bit of exposure for my films and it really brought this home to me. These guys are every bit as much "fundamentalists" as the fucking Taliban, srsly.

I wouldn't lump this board in that category. I think the folks round here are pretty much the same as myself - we mock, mercilessly, primarily for the mockery itself. It doesn't matter what subject you care to make a post about, if I can see and angle then I'll mock it, for the glory of the lulz. Same goes for anyone else on this board and I expect to be treated the same way. If Cain didn't tear me to shreds every time I espose a naive or downright stupid political opinion or LMNO or Kai didn't jump on my case whenever I subscribe to some ridiculous pseudoscience, I'd definitely get a lot less enjoyment from this place.

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:10:56 PM
Do some searching on "The Dreadful Hours" old posts...

Beat me to it.  He tells me that he goes home and weeps about that shit you know.   :wink:

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:00:00 PM
No, but I bet they would if you claimed you were channeling Siva the World-Destroyer through your hands when you sculpt.


See the difference?

I was talking about the feelings people can get from art or faith, not the way they organize or classify those feelings.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
I guess maybe the better question would be, What doesn't get torn apart every now and again on PD.COM? 

The Bring & Brag section seems fairly immune, for one.

:lulz: Not IME...

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 06:13:10 PM

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:00:00 PM
No, but I bet they would if you claimed you were channeling Siva the World-Destroyer through your hands when you sculpt.


See the difference?

I was talking about the feelings people can get from art or faith, not the way they organize or classify those feelings.

And I was pointing out that posting about the gnosis experience won't get you flamed, but building up an indefensible position about the gnosis experience might.

What is it exactly that you'd like to see change, Nigel?

I'm still getting the sense that you want everyone here to not mock something you care about and want to discuss, or at least not mock it as hard or as much as they normally would.

I've given up talking about typography and visual design for the most part and directed my thoughts on it into a more receptive audience.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:11:45 PMIf Cain didn't tear me to shreds every time I espose a naive or downright stupid political opinion or LMNO or Kai didn't jump on my case whenever I subscribe to some ridiculous pseudoscience, I'd definitely get a lot less enjoyment from this place.

The difference in these things is that there are concrete arguments against them based on observation and science, whereas the argument against faith basically boils down to "Nuh-uh, that's stupid".

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:17:03 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 06:13:10 PM

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:00:00 PM
No, but I bet they would if you claimed you were channeling Siva the World-Destroyer through your hands when you sculpt.


See the difference?

I was talking about the feelings people can get from art or faith, not the way they organize or classify those feelings.

And I was pointing out that posting about the gnosis experience won't get you flamed, but building up an indefensible position about the gnosis experience might.

Justifiably so, if that indefensible position affects anyone but yourself, or if you're being fucking annoying about it.  :lulz:

So, perhaps we should treat posts about spirituality and faith like they were poems?  

That is to say, they are asthetic statements, and shouldn't be subject to deconstruction and criticism?

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 06:19:02 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:11:45 PMIf Cain didn't tear me to shreds every time I espose a naive or downright stupid political opinion or LMNO or Kai didn't jump on my case whenever I subscribe to some ridiculous pseudoscience, I'd definitely get a lot less enjoyment from this place.

The difference in these things is that there are concrete arguments against them based on observation and science, whereas the argument against faith basically boils down to "Nuh-uh, that's stupid".

You can boil any argument down to "Nuh-uh, that's stupid". It's the shit that gets boiled off that appeals to me. That's where the potential lulz reside. "Nuh-uh, that's stupid... because ... insert potd here"

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 06:19:00 PM
What is it exactly that you'd like to see change, Nigel?

I'm still getting the sense that you want everyone here to not mock something you care about and want to discuss, or at least not mock it as hard or as much as they normally would.

I've given up talking about typography and visual design for the most part and directed my thoughts on it into a more receptive audience.

yeah I don't post pix of me LARPing much for similar reasons.

or remember that time AKK posted links to the sites he jerks off at?  :lol:



I think the moral of the story is that if you want to talk about something you're sensitive about, you've gotta pick the right angle. Anybody I've seen make any objective claim about spiritual matters has gotten flamed, yes. But reparse the thing in e-prime and much fewer people have a problem.

On this board in particular, I've seen some really out-there beliefs and majiq ritualz pass without mention because they were phrased in really tight e-prime.

I disagree with the claim that this board swinging towards the militant atheist side. I think it was actually a bit more hardlined-materialist  when I joined. I think the tone has gotten more permissive since then. I recall wanting to learn more about Kaballah, and mangrove sending me a lot of info via PM which he didn't want to post on the board. He feared he'd have to deal with justifying everything to everyone, and thereby becoming the personal proxy for any vitriol towards Kaballah. Come to think of it, I've had a number of good religious discussions via PM to avoid the cacophony of the board at large.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 06:19:02 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:11:45 PMIf Cain didn't tear me to shreds every time I espose a naive or downright stupid political opinion or LMNO or Kai didn't jump on my case whenever I subscribe to some ridiculous pseudoscience, I'd definitely get a lot less enjoyment from this place.

The difference in these things is that there are concrete arguments against them based on observation and science, whereas the argument against faith basically boils down to "Nuh-uh, that's stupid".

I agree. Any argument about 'faith' will boil down to "I believe it because I want to". And in the end, that is bullshit (but bullshit makes the flowers grow, and that is beautiful).

However, being able to discuss our 'experiences' in whatever metaphor most usefully describes the experience is not the same thing. So if you say to me, "I have faith in the Native Gods, because some spag in a Teepee told me to." then I would probably have little respect for that (seems like a "My Preacher said" sort of defense. If however, you talked about your personal spiritual experiences, as experienced by you within your neurological system... then I would probably have a great deal of respect for you AND would be very interested in your perception of experience.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 09, 2009, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 06:19:02 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:11:45 PMIf Cain didn't tear me to shreds every time I espose a naive or downright stupid political opinion or LMNO or Kai didn't jump on my case whenever I subscribe to some ridiculous pseudoscience, I'd definitely get a lot less enjoyment from this place.

The difference in these things is that there are concrete arguments against them based on observation and science, whereas the argument against faith basically boils down to "Nuh-uh, that's stupid".

I agree. Any argument about 'faith' will boil down to "I believe it because I want to". And in the end, that is bullshit (but bullshit makes the flowers grow, and that is beautiful).

However, being able to discuss our 'experiences' in whatever metaphor most usefully describes the experience is not the same thing. So if you say to me, "I have faith in the Native Gods, because some spag in a Teepee told me to." then I would probably have little respect for that (seems like a "My Preacher said" sort of defense. If however, you talked about your personal spiritual experiences, as experienced by you within your neurological system... then I would probably have a great deal of respect for you AND would be very interested in your perception of experience.

THIS!

I made a post years ago about meeting god (the actual guy) on a mushroom trip and nobody flamed me for it. The real put-downs on this board are more levelled at followers vs freethinkers and I think that's something we're very close to consensus on.

Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 06:31:51 PM
I disagree with the claim that this board swinging towards the militant atheist side. I think it was actually a bit more hardlined-materialist  when I joined. I think the tone has gotten more permissive since then. I recall wanting to learn more about Kaballah, and mangrove sending me a lot of info via PM which he didn't want to post on the board. He feared he'd have to deal with justifying everything to everyone, and thereby becoming the personal proxy for any vitriol towards Kaballah. Come to think of it, I've had a number of good religious discussions via PM to avoid the cacophony of the board at large.

Which, in a way, is a good thing.

I mean, if there was something I cared about, and wanted to discuss in a serious, personal way, I'm not sure I would post it on any public forum, much less PD.com.  I would find like-minded people and PM, email, or personal chat.  It's too easy to have a conversation derailed.

Quote from: LMNO redux on March 09, 2009, 06:40:24 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on March 09, 2009, 06:31:51 PM
I disagree with the claim that this board swinging towards the militant atheist side. I think it was actually a bit more hardlined-materialist  when I joined. I think the tone has gotten more permissive since then. I recall wanting to learn more about Kaballah, and mangrove sending me a lot of info via PM which he didn't want to post on the board. He feared he'd have to deal with justifying everything to everyone, and thereby becoming the personal proxy for any vitriol towards Kaballah. Come to think of it, I've had a number of good religious discussions via PM to avoid the cacophony of the board at large.

Which, in a way, is a good thing.

I mean, if there was something I cared about, and wanted to discuss in a serious, personal way, I'm not sure I would post it on any public forum, much less PD.com.  I would find like-minded people and PM, email, or personal chat.  It's too easy to have a conversation derailed.

Specialist boards are better for specialist interests anyroad. I don't talk much about gran turismo games here, got I got gt planet for that shit. This board is harder to nail down but there is a sorta implicit list of shit that doesn't belong here. You want to test the waters? Fine, post about it and see if it gets you flamed  :lulz:

As an atheist, I think it's actually pretty fair to say that my disbelief in God/gods/higher powers is based on faith. If it was purely reason, you're probably right that I'd be an agnostic. However, I am no more capable of believing that it is possible there is a God, then religious people are capable of not believing in God, and I find it kind of offensive to be told that I'm only an atheist to piss off theists. I've tried multiple times to believe in some sort of higher power, but I just can't.

I call myself an atheist simply because that is the most accurate term for my beliefs.I have no interest in pissing off theists, and will even talk to evangelical Christians on the street if they're polite and I'm not doing anything at the time. I've also gone to a Sikh temple, and enjoyed myself.

In fact, I actually find theists' beliefs fascinating and like discussing it with them, which I hopefully do not do in a condescending way. I agree with what Ratatosk said, though, about finding people's personal experiences more interesting/valid than just them repeating what somebody else told them.

Thanks Jim.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:43:27 PM
Specialist boards are better for specialist interests anyroad. I don't talk much about gran turismo games here, got I got gt planet for that shit. This board is harder to nail down but there is a sorta implicit list of shit that doesn't belong here. You want to test the waters? Fine, post about it and see if it gets you flamed  :lulz:

Pent, not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a special interest board for a religion.  :lulz:

Quote from: Torodung on March 09, 2009, 05:52:41 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 03:28:09 AM

Quote from: OPTIMUS PINECONE on March 09, 2009, 02:56:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:26:06 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 09, 2009, 01:15:25 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 09, 2009, 01:05:34 AM
I just don't feel the need to discuss my spirituality publicly.

And if something came over me to do so on a board full of asshats it would be ridiculous to think that they would suddenly take their hat off and hold their bowels.



If one doesn't like something made with intent then it's called propaganda, evangelism, or artless.

If one does like something made with intent then it's called information, education, or art.

Sure.  I mean, if words don't mean anything.

People mean things. Words are arbitrary symbols of sounds.

    I disagree. Tha last thing which words, symbols or sounds may be is, arbitrary.

Capitalist narrative, feminism and objectivism
John la Fournier
Department of Gender Politics, University of California, Berkeley
1. Realities of rubicon

Hey there. I'll buy the books if I want to read that. Your attempts to imitate a dark ages monk, copying scripture to ward off the darkness, are lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame.

I spent years in a sweaty dungeon with deconstructionists. They had razed the English department, and locked themselves in with a poster of Derrida and the collected works of John Cage. By the time we were done, only I remained. Everyone else had gone to pieces.

Don't go to pieces on us, eh?

This made me laugh out loud.  Now my filthy assistant thinks I'm crazy.   :argh!:

Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 03:48:30 AM
Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary.

Words are not.

Not if we plan on having anything more than that "all is maya" crap.

Oh yeah, I forgot to say that saying words are meaningless is completely idiotic. The purpose of words is to communicate, and if they're not doing that then there is no purpose. Similarly, if words do communicate, then there is a purpose, even if they aren't "proper" words. Basically, if people know what you mean when you use a word, you're doing it right, and if they don't, you're not.

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 12:09:04 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot to say that saying words are meaningless is completely idiotic. The purpose of words is to communicate, and if they're not doing that then there is no purpose. Similarly, if words do communicate, then there is a purpose, even if they aren't "proper" words. Basically, if people know what you mean when you use a word, you're doing it right, and if they don't, you're not.

:mittens:

Words are plenty arbitrary, that just doesn't mean they're meaningless.  99% of the time, you have to use the same arbitrary meaning as everyone else.

Though if you're told to invent a fake alien language that the pathetically obsessed fans of a TV show can learn, you can make a set of new arbitrary meanings.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 12:00:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 03:48:30 AM
Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary.

Words are not.

Not if we plan on having anything more than that "all is maya" crap.

Words are not meaningless. That doesn't mean that the fact that these particular scritch marks here indicate this sound here and that sound indicates a particular concept, that doesn't mean those conjunctions of lines and sound and meaning have any particular meaning above the meaning of the concept. Words are symbols, and symbols are somewhat arbitrary, not in MEANING, but in FORM.

For example, take the written letters "you". That a line crossed down to a longer line next to a circle next to an arch together indicate a particular sound and a particular meaning is arbitrary. The letters that indicate those sounds could have turned out like anything, those set of lines only have that particular meaning because we all agree they have that particular meaning. Its otherwise somewhat arbitrary.

Thats what I was saying. Not that "all is maya" or whatever you are talking about.

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

Anyway. If this is the corner of the Web designated for Atheist Discordians, that's all well and good. I'll take my ball and go to another playground. But if it's not, I'll stick around, and I'm going to stop keeping my mouth shut and going with the flow when it comes to taking blanket jabs at other people's religion.

All too true. Perhaps the difficulty lies in the minds of those that ridicule. It is easy to laugh at faith when you have none. I do not live my life based on faith, but to have something to believe in makes it a bit easier to hear those who do not. The dividing line between faith and reason is wher we live our lives. Faith guides us, but reason must be our sovereign.

Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

Quote from: Kai on March 10, 2009, 01:02:21 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 12:00:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 03:48:30 AM
Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary.

Words are not.

Not if we plan on having anything more than that "all is maya" crap.

Words are not meaningless. That doesn't mean that the fact that these particular scritch marks here indicate this sound here and that sound indicates a particular concept, that doesn't mean those conjunctions of lines and sound and meaning have any particular meaning above the meaning of the concept. Words are symbols, and symbols are somewhat arbitrary, not in MEANING, but in FORM.

For example, take the written letters "you". That a line crossed down to a longer line next to a circle next to an arch together indicate a particular sound and a particular meaning is arbitrary. The letters that indicate those sounds could have turned out like anything, those set of lines only have that particular meaning because we all agree they have that particular meaning. Its otherwise somewhat arbitrary.

Thats what I was saying. Not that "all is maya" or whatever you are talking about.

Sorry.  My symbols seem to have suddenly jumped out of phase with yours, arbitrarily, and I couldn't make heads or tails of your post.  No offense; it seems that I have gorgoplatz.  Arib?  Jsyt mig poop?

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

Uh, yeah, but they aren't taken out of human context, so in the context we're talking about, they do have meaning.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

No, words are meant to communicate between people.  If all human beings died, you have bigger worries, right?  Like being dead.  By your logic, math is subjective, because symbols don't actually mean anything.  Ergo, everyone should pass calculus, because your answer is just as "valid" as mine.

Bullshit navel-lint gathering:  Because it's easier than actually thinking.

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:03:08 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

Uh, yeah, but they aren't taken out of human context, so in the context we're talking about, they do have meaning.

The point was that people create the meaning, not the words.

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 03:07:47 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:03:08 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

Uh, yeah, but they aren't taken out of human context, so in the context we're talking about, they do have meaning.

The point was that people create the meaning, not the words.

Who cares what creates the meaning?  The fact is that the meaning is there, the meaning is real, and if you doubt this, go up to a cop and say "suck my dick".  While he's beating your arse bloody, you can try to explain to him that, subjectively, you were saying "have a nice day".

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM
It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

1.  If someone marginalizes you, smack a motherfucker down.

2.  See #1.

Atheism, unlike agnosticism, is just another faith.  Would you let Christians push you around?  Scientologists?  Buddhists?

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 01:18:16 AM
This isn't finished, but it's as much as I feel like writing right now.


I don't talk about my religion much. For one thing, I don't want to have to explain it... it's complicated. For another thing, I don't relish getting caught in the explain/justify/defend cycle that happens so often, especially when talking to a social group that is rich in devout atheists. I find that in situations like that, atheists become evangelistic, as if they're on a mission to pry religion from every mind they encounter. I don't like the judgment, the condemnation, or the derision – it's easier to never bring it up at all, and let them assume that I'm one of their fold.

One of the reasons I don't like being in a position where I'm asked to defend my religion is because I find that religion is indefensible. It's not logical; more like humor than it is like love, it defies being pinned down with algorithms and intellectualism. Much of what is funny is subjective, makes no sense, and cannot be predicted, and to me, that's what religion is like. Not only can I not explain or justify why I have it, I don't even care to try. No, really. I don't. It's not something I take great comfort in, because I'm not a believer in a benevolent god. It's just something I have faith in... faith, which cannot be logically defended. Something pretty absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Friends confronted with the fact that I have religion are often disbelieving, then derisive. "You don't really believe in that, do you? I mean, you don't believe that it's really for real real, right?"

Truth?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it's metaphor, sometimes it's an exercise of the mind, and sometimes it's really for real real, something that came with me from my ancestors. Something so pants-wettingly old that I'd be seriously disrespecting my ancestors if I thumbed my nose at believing in it. It's as real as their existences, as their bone fragments littering the desert in Jerome and their skeletons being slowly permeated by minerals in Conwy, Echota, and Mombasa. If I imagine something, does it exist? Well... of course! Sort of.

The simplest way for me to explain why I have religion is to say that it's because I've decided to. I like it.

Fuck you, Kai.

Lol with the insanely religious friends I have I am usually persecuted for being atheist.

But whenever I attack someones religion it is because they blindly accept something that is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I MUST force logic into all aspects of life, because really 99% of everything makes sense when you learn enough about it, like if I sent a battery powered portable DVD player to ancient Greece. They would think a god sent it back and that a god was making the images on the screen, but once they learn how it works they see that it isn't a god, but merely electricity. So that is why I hate illogical religions.

Really I just believe all religions are hallucinations; a method for control; or a method of explaining the world to those who don't understand it, like assigning a god who governs the atoms, because we do not fully understand them yet; a scam to get money, or a rip-off of another religion.

So yeah.

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 03:23:22 AM


But whenever I attack someones religion it is because they blindly accept something that is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone does that.  Even you.

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 03:23:22 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 01:18:16 AM
This isn't finished, but it's as much as I feel like writing right now.


I don't talk about my religion much. For one thing, I don't want to have to explain it... it's complicated. For another thing, I don't relish getting caught in the explain/justify/defend cycle that happens so often, especially when talking to a social group that is rich in devout atheists. I find that in situations like that, atheists become evangelistic, as if they're on a mission to pry religion from every mind they encounter. I don't like the judgment, the condemnation, or the derision – it's easier to never bring it up at all, and let them assume that I'm one of their fold.

One of the reasons I don't like being in a position where I'm asked to defend my religion is because I find that religion is indefensible. It's not logical; more like humor than it is like love, it defies being pinned down with algorithms and intellectualism. Much of what is funny is subjective, makes no sense, and cannot be predicted, and to me, that's what religion is like. Not only can I not explain or justify why I have it, I don't even care to try. No, really. I don't. It's not something I take great comfort in, because I'm not a believer in a benevolent god. It's just something I have faith in... faith, which cannot be logically defended. Something pretty absurd. You either get it or you don't.

Friends confronted with the fact that I have religion are often disbelieving, then derisive. "You don't really believe in that, do you? I mean, you don't believe that it's really for real real, right?"

Truth?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it's metaphor, sometimes it's an exercise of the mind, and sometimes it's really for real real, something that came with me from my ancestors. Something so pants-wettingly old that I'd be seriously disrespecting my ancestors if I thumbed my nose at believing in it. It's as real as their existences, as their bone fragments littering the desert in Jerome and their skeletons being slowly permeated by minerals in Conwy, Echota, and Mombasa. If I imagine something, does it exist? Well... of course! Sort of.

The simplest way for me to explain why I have religion is to say that it's because I've decided to. I like it.

Fuck you, Kai.

Lol with the insanely religious friends I have I am usually persecuted for being atheist.

But whenever I attack someones religion it is because they blindly accept something that is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, I MUST force logic into all aspects of life, because really 99% of everything makes sense when you learn enough about it, like if I sent a battery powered portable DVD player to ancient Greece. They would think a god sent it back and that a god was making the images on the screen, but once they learn how it works they see that it isn't a god, but merely electricity. So that is why I hate illogical religions.

Really I just believe all religions are hallucinations; a method for control; or a method of explaining the world to those who don't understand it, like assigning a god who governs the atoms, because we do not fully understand them yet; a scam to get money, or a rip-off of another religion.

So yeah.

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

2. You don't know much about ancient Greece, do you?

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

This is why it's embarrassing to admit to being an atheist.

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:48:18 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

This is why it's embarrassing to admit to being an atheist.

Why?  It's kinda like being a Calvinist, only you sneer at Christians instead of poor people.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 04:06:46 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:48:18 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

This is why it's embarrassing to admit to being an atheist.

Why?  It's kinda like being a Calvinist, only you sneer at Christians instead of poor people.

I don't like sneering at groups, only individuals.

Immediately after I posted this, I realized that I sneer at hipsters, e-tards/ravers and libertarians all the time. Fuck, I'm a hypocrite.  :x

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 04:22:48 AM
I don't like sneering at groups, only individuals.

I like sneering at groups.  For example, the group that embodies "every fucking human being on the planet".

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 04:22:48 AM
Immediately after I posted this, I realized that I sneer at hipsters, e-tards/ravers and libertarians all the time. Fuck, I'm a hypocrite.  :x

No, you simply misspoke.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:13:17 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2009, 08:06:27 PM
It's not so much that others bug me, personally, as that I'm getting the growing sense that this particular corner of Discordia is becoming increasingly closed to those of us who do have religion; the spiritual and the religious, whether reverently or irreverently so. How many people here will confess to being spiritual or religious, in the face of being mocked by their atheism-embracing peers? I know several who are privately spiritual... yet religion-baiting is a popular sport here, and I take part in it too. I don't despise religion, though, or the religious, even though I may be eccentric in the way I practice mine. I despise evangelism and fundamentalism in almost all aspects, for the way the practitioners of those try to impose their irrational, indefensible beliefs on others.

Like I said in another thread, I don't want to see PD.com Discordianism turn into Pastafarianism. I like the St. Maes of Discord, and I think it would be pretty sad if people like she or I or some of the others I know felt marginalized here. Well, some of them already do.

1.  If someone marginalizes you, smack a motherfucker down.

2.  See #1.

Atheism, unlike agnosticism, is just another faith.  Would you let Christians push you around?  Scientologists?  Buddhists?

Nope, but I wouldn't hang out with a bunch of them for fun, either.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:03:06 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 10, 2009, 01:02:21 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 12:00:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 03:48:30 AM
Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary.

Words are not.

Not if we plan on having anything more than that "all is maya" crap.

Words are not meaningless. That doesn't mean that the fact that these particular scritch marks here indicate this sound here and that sound indicates a particular concept, that doesn't mean those conjunctions of lines and sound and meaning have any particular meaning above the meaning of the concept. Words are symbols, and symbols are somewhat arbitrary, not in MEANING, but in FORM.

For example, take the written letters "you". That a line crossed down to a longer line next to a circle next to an arch together indicate a particular sound and a particular meaning is arbitrary. The letters that indicate those sounds could have turned out like anything, those set of lines only have that particular meaning because we all agree they have that particular meaning. Its otherwise somewhat arbitrary.

Thats what I was saying. Not that "all is maya" or whatever you are talking about.

Sorry.  My symbols seem to have suddenly jumped out of phase with yours, arbitrarily, and I couldn't make heads or tails of your post.  No offense; it seems that I have gorgoplatz.  Arib?  Jsyt mig poop?

Okay.

Kai,

Knows when its time to leave a discussion.

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 11:42:19 PM
Thanks Jim.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:43:27 PM
Specialist boards are better for specialist interests anyroad. I don't talk much about gran turismo games here, got I got gt planet for that shit. This board is harder to nail down but there is a sorta implicit list of shit that doesn't belong here. You want to test the waters? Fine, post about it and see if it gets you flamed  :lulz:

Pent, not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a special interest board for a religion.  :lulz:

Heh, my bad. I keep forgetting that discordianism is meant to be a religion. I never ever think of it in those terms. 

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 11:42:19 PM
Thanks Jim.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:43:27 PM
Specialist boards are better for specialist interests anyroad. I don't talk much about gran turismo games here, got I got gt planet for that shit. This board is harder to nail down but there is a sorta implicit list of shit that doesn't belong here. You want to test the waters? Fine, post about it and see if it gets you flamed  :lulz:

Pent, not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a special interest board for a religion.  :lulz:

It is?  I thought it was a special interest board designed to strip out assumptive certainties and absolutes from any given belief system.


Shit.  Now what do I do?

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 12:30:29 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 11:42:19 PM
Thanks Jim.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 06:43:27 PM
Specialist boards are better for specialist interests anyroad. I don't talk much about gran turismo games here, got I got gt planet for that shit. This board is harder to nail down but there is a sorta implicit list of shit that doesn't belong here. You want to test the waters? Fine, post about it and see if it gets you flamed  :lulz:

Pent, not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a special interest board for a religion.  :lulz:

It is?  I thought it was a special interest board designed to strip out assumptive certainties and absolutes from any given belief system.


Shit.  Now what do I do?

Pray. To Eris. For forgiveness and shit.

Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

It's complicated, like the reason vaginas become engorged.

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 01:23:26 PM
It's complicated, like the reason vaginas become engorged.

new news item -

Discordianism - the real reason vaginas become engorged.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 10, 2009, 01:30:33 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 01:23:26 PM
It's complicated, like the reason vaginas become engorged.

new news item -

Discordianism - the real reason vaginas become engorged.

:mittens:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:06:24 AM

Quote from: Anomalous on March 10, 2009, 02:42:48 AM
Taken out of human context, words are meaningless.

That context is dependent on people of a specific, time and place.

If all human beings died, many things—words on billboards, roads, heaps of garbage—would remain, but meaning wouldn't.

Meaning lies in human experience, not outside of it or in words themselves.

Words are tools used to create meaning in people.

No, words are meant to communicate between people.  If all human beings died, you have bigger worries, right?  Like being dead.  By your logic, math is subjective, because symbols don't actually mean anything.  Ergo, everyone should pass calculus, because your answer is just as "valid" as mine.

Bullshit navel-lint gathering:  Because it's easier than actually thinking.

Actually, post-structuralist theory has some things in common with Godel's incompleteness theorem.  The idea behind deconstruction and post-structuralism is not "everything is valid" or everything is ultimately meaningless, only that meanings are unstable and can be determined culturally, historically and individually, in short that perfect communication was not possible.  Obvious example, "gay" used to mean happy, but is most commonly used to mean "homosexual" now.

For instance, if we take the work of Derrida, he set out to read texts and pick apart how they used loaded metaphors and phrases and how that related to their overall theories and ideas.  That's hardly an example of not thinking, in fact, it involves linguistically investigating a text to a great degree, teasing out the interplay of figuartive use of language and very critically interrogating the work of others.

Some American philosophers, such as those at Yale, have rightly been denounced for their lackidasical "Making it up as you go along" approach to textual theory and even trying to extend the discoveries of unstable meanings in literary text beyond that realm.  For example:

Quote from: DerridaWhat philosopher ever since there were philosophers, what logician since there were logicians, what theoretician ever renounced this axiom: in the order of concepts (since we are speaking of concepts and not of the colours of clouds or the taste of certain chewing gums), when a distinction cannot be rigorous and precise, it is not a distinction at all.

Lacan also said anyone who hijacks language for private purposes must expect to be seen as "psychotic."  Nonetheless, they believed there was a social, cultural and historical component to language, that because people confuse the map for the territory, language often confused the issue, and could be misunderstood, could have unintended meanings, could actually cut us off from reality by making us have to refer to language instead of physical, existing objects in order to communicate.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if Kai and Anomalous didn't explain it in the best way possibly (ironically, helping to prove that language can be unstable).

[insert inflammatory comment about semantics, E-Prime, and "Sumbunall" here]

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

Tempest, I would suggest people who believe burning other people alive for not thinking like them could be pretty dangerous.  Some logical thought from people like that would be nice.

Roger has already beat me to my caveat in making the above statement, however.  Many "logical" "freethinkers" seem only able to apply their logical freethinking to a single topic, namely how wrong all the religioustards are.  Which is essentially like pointing out that water is wet.  Both obvious and easy.  Now, if they applied some critical thinking as to the workings of the economy, or international politics, or the function of the media, or indeed virtually anything else...then I might take the complaint about "zomg irrational people being irrational!" more seriously.  But of course, those topics are hard, and may not be as socially acceptable as atheism (I know this is highly dependent on location, but in the UK for example, atheism barely even raises and eyebrow in most places).

Everyone is irrational about something.  The best you can hope for is education and structuring things so their irrationality does not get too out of hand.

Or, failing that, mockery.

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 03:05:13 PM
[insert inflammatory comment about semantics, E-Prime, and "Sumbunall" here]

I agree with LMNO...



you know its coming



wait for it



in some sense...

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 09, 2009, 11:10:26 PM
As an atheist, I think it's actually pretty fair to say that my disbelief in God/gods/higher powers is based on faith. If it was purely reason, you're probably right that I'd be an agnostic. However, I am no more capable of believing that it is possible there is a God, then religious people are capable of not believing in God, and I find it kind of offensive to be told that I'm only an atheist to piss off theists. I've tried multiple times to believe in some sort of higher power, but I just can't.

I call myself an atheist simply because that is the most accurate term for my beliefs.I have no interest in pissing off theists, and will even talk to evangelical Christians on the street if they're polite and I'm not doing anything at the time. I've also gone to a Sikh temple, and enjoyed myself.

In fact, I actually find theists' beliefs fascinating and like discussing it with them, which I hopefully do not do in a condescending way. I agree with what Ratatosk said, though, about finding people's personal experiences more interesting/valid than just them repeating what somebody else told them.

Despite being agnostic, this is most similar to my position.  I lean heavily towards atheism, but I cannot totally discount

1) Deism
2) Trickster gods fucking with my head

Either one seems highly unlikely, not to mention having next to no effect on my life anyway (a deistic god doesn't need or want my worship, and a trickster god presumably doesn't either, and will fuck with my head in the bargain) so it may as well be that god(s) don't exist.  So there is room for revision, but its pretty small.

I don't mind religious people, until the point they try and apply their rules onto society at large.  Even then, I don't engage such people in a way which will help their cause (ie public slanging match where I can get labelled "angry bigoted atheist") so that's alright.  I think we have better ways of coming up with rules for society at large, and if they want to tack some of their own onto the end of that, then that is their decision, so long as all parties involved agree (for example, arranged marriages are not something I look favourably upon, unless the people in question have both agreed with their families beforehand about going down that route).

So in short, religion doesn't bother me, but the social and political impact of religion might, depending on exactly how much coercion is involved in it.

Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2009, 03:06:28 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

Tempest, I would suggest people who believe burning other people alive for not thinking like them could be pretty dangerous.  Some logical thought from people like that would be nice.

Roger has already beat me to my caveat in making the above statement, however.  Many "logical" "freethinkers" seem only able to apply their logical freethinking to a single topic, namely how wrong all the religioustards are.  Which is essentially like pointing out that water is wet.  Both obvious and easy.  Now, if they applied some critical thinking as to the workings of the economy, or international politics, or the function of the media, or indeed virtually anything else...then I might take the complaint about "zomg irrational people being irrational!" more seriously.  But of course, those topics are hard, and may not be as socially acceptable as atheism (I know this is highly dependent on location, but in the UK for example, atheism barely even raises and eyebrow in most places).

Everyone is irrational about something.  The best you can hope for is education and structuring things so their irrationality does not get too out of hand.

Or, failing that, mockery.

That's because the uk is pretty much proof positive that god doesn't exist. No benevolent deity could possibly abide the existence of this fucking place.  :lulz:

Glasgow is proof that hell exists, however.

Good point. So, basically, we have proven categorically that god doesn't exist and that the devil lives in easterhouse. QED   

Ah, but then we have Bulgokov's Seventh Proof...

Fuck Bulgokov. He has a stupid name.

Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2009, 03:06:28 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:41:37 AM

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 10, 2009, 03:39:18 AM

1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   :lulz:

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

Tempest, I would suggest people who believe burning other people alive for not thinking like them could be pretty dangerous.  Some logical thought from people like that would be nice.

Roger has already beat me to my caveat in making the above statement, however.  Many "logical" "freethinkers" seem only able to apply their logical freethinking to a single topic, namely how wrong all the religioustards are.  Which is essentially like pointing out that water is wet.  Both obvious and easy.  Now, if they applied some critical thinking as to the workings of the economy, or international politics, or the function of the media, or indeed virtually anything else...then I might take the complaint about "zomg irrational people being irrational!" more seriously.  But of course, those topics are hard, and may not be as socially acceptable as atheism (I know this is highly dependent on location, but in the UK for example, atheism barely even raises and eyebrow in most places).

Everyone is irrational about something.  The best you can hope for is education and structuring things so their irrationality does not get too out of hand.

Or, failing that, mockery.

Yeah, okay, that's fair. I was mostly just annoyed at Skieth for being a smug asshole, and it made me sloppy.

No problem.  Being a smug asshole is annoying, I agree, and 99% of the reasons I dislike "New Atheists".

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:38:10 AM

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 03:23:22 AM


But whenever I attack someones religion it is because they blindly accept something that is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone does that.  Even you.

I know I do.

And when I do, and someone else notices it, I don't go batshit on them when they rebuke me for believing it, I just talk to them about it and see their point of view on it. I don't try to act like I am the all seeing eye in a world of retards. I just find a lot of religious people to be blind followers who have never even looked at other religions to see what they are about, or have never even thought about the things in their religion that don't make sense.

Quote1. I don't get it, why MUST you force other people to follow your logic? Who cares if they aren't "logical"? It's not hurting you.

2. You don't know much about ancient Greece, do you?

I don't actually bash other peoples religion. In fact 90% of the time I don't talk about religion unless someone says something to me about it. But I REALLY hate the fact that even though I don't really look into things like Christianity, I still know more about it than most Christians I know, and that REALLY pisses me off. And when that is happening I DO talk about religion. Or when I actually do read the Bible (which I do occasionally when I'm REALLY bored and I don't have a book to read) and I find something that really makes me think in it.

And as for #2 it was an example -.- it was not supposed to be a literal situation.

Quote
Well, because he's so much smarter than them, obviously.  Because he doesn't ever believe in anything that defies logic.   lol

TGRR,
Is willing to be the spag even believes that the US "government" exists.

Whats your problem? Did I ever even say something like " Oh I are teh smarts and all Christians/religous people are teh stupidzzzzz"? No. I just said why I would bash someone if I were to bash someone for their religion. And what does "Is willing to be the spag even believes.." even supposed to mean?

Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2009, 05:03:52 PM
No problem.  Being a smug asshole is annoying, I agree, and 99% of the reasons I dislike "New Atheists".

Also, because saying what you think is TOTALLY being a smug asshole, I mean there is no POSSIBLE way you could have interpreted it differently than I meant it, right?

Of course.

Guys, Skeith sounds like we should apply the 50-post suggestion here.

Request to save the flames for 33 more posts, eh?

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:31:44 PM
Guys, Skeith sounds like we should apply the 50-post suggestion here.

Request to save the flames for 33 more posts, eh?

As much as I felt like laying into him... I agree with LMNO ;-)


I still know more about it than most Christians I know...

*must resist*

He said "most".


I don't think you count, and JW is a minority sect...

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:31:44 PM
Guys, Skeith sounds like we should apply the 50-post suggestion here.

Request to save the flames for 33 more posts, eh?

Why? Because no one can dare talk bad about you guys unless they have posted and have been accepted? Why can't you just not pay attention to how long I have been here (I never post often on forums, I prefer to look around and read more than type a response, for this very reason) and read my post like TGRR or someone older wrote it?

Even if I had some ridiculously high post count my posts would be no different >_>

QuoteI still know more about it than most Christians I know...

*must resist*

If you have something to say, say it. I know a lot more about Christianity than a lot of Christians I have talked to about it. It is because most of them follow it blindly without even thinking.

They SHOULD know more about Christianity than an atheist who only reads his bible when he is really bored.

Of course, there are some people who do know a lot about religion, and we do have really good conversations about it. And those people do have good points sometimes. (not always, but sometimes)

EDIT: I think that is a little better.

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:38:00 PM
He said "most".


I don't think you count, and JW is a minority sect...

ROFL, well A) I don't count since I'm not a Christian (anymore) and B) I'm not even referencing JW's.... I just find that many atheists that 'know the bible better than most Christians' generally mean "I googled all this stuff about the Bible that I can throw in people's faces". Of course, I could be wrong about our friend Skieth

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 07:40:21 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:31:44 PM
Guys, Skeith sounds like we should apply the 50-post suggestion here.

Request to save the flames for 33 more posts, eh?

Why? Because no one can dare talk bad about you guys unless they have posted and have been accepted? Why can't you just not pay attention to how long I have been here (I never post often on forums, I prefer to look around and read more than type a response, for this very reason) and read my post like TGRR or someone older wrote it?

Even if I had some ridiculously high post count my posts would be no different >_>

Calm down.  The 50-post suggestion says that we should allow new posters 50 posts to get the feel for these forums, so the general tone and tenor of the forums becomes clear.  That way, people like you won't get all pissed off and leave, and gives more time for the addictive toxins to absorb into the skin.

Quote

QuoteI still know more about it than most Christians I know...

*must resist*

If you have something to say, say it. It is true, I DO know more about Christianity because I used to be a REALLY devout Christian until I became an atheist.

If you are religious you should know more about it than an atheist who only reads it when he is bored.

Ratatosk used to be a Jehova's Witness.  I'm an amateur bible scholar and part-time Kabbalist.  Pleased to meet you.

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:44:33 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 07:40:21 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:31:44 PM
Guys, Skeith sounds like we should apply the 50-post suggestion here.

Request to save the flames for 33 more posts, eh?

Why? Because no one can dare talk bad about you guys unless they have posted and have been accepted? Why can't you just not pay attention to how long I have been here (I never post often on forums, I prefer to look around and read more than type a response, for this very reason) and read my post like TGRR or someone older wrote it?

Even if I had some ridiculously high post count my posts would be no different >_>

Calm down.  The 50-post suggestion says that we should allow new posters 50 posts to get the feel for these forums, so the general tone and tenor of the forums becomes clear.  That way, people like you won't get all pissed off and leave, and gives more time for the addictive toxins to absorb into the skin.

Quote

QuoteI still know more about it than most Christians I know...

*must resist*

If you have something to say, say it. It is true, I DO know more about Christianity because I used to be a REALLY devout Christian until I became an atheist.

If you are religious you should know more about it than an atheist who only reads it when he is bored.

Ratatosk used to be a Jehova's Witness.  I'm an amateur bible scholar and part-time Kabbalist.  Pleased to meet you.

Damn it LMNO, you beat me to the post.

Yeah, what he said... also Hi Skieth!

Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2009, 02:57:29 PM

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, even if Kai and Anomalous didn't explain it in the best way possibly (ironically, helping to prove that language can be unstable).

I tried my best.

Also, roger, next time go take a shit on someone else, like someone that doesn't go out of their way to keep from pissing you off on a regular basis.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 10, 2009, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:38:00 PM
He said "most".


I don't think you count, and JW is a minority sect...

ROFL, well A) I don't count since I'm not a Christian (anymore) and B) I'm not even referencing JW's.... I just find that many atheists that 'know the bible better than most Christians' generally mean "I googled all this stuff about the Bible that I can throw in people's faces". Of course, I could be wrong about our friend Skieth

You are, and yes, I know A LOT of atheists like that (and they do piss me off)

Anything I have to say to any of my religious friends I get from reading the bible and thinking about it. I have NEVER done the whole "oh lets google it and see why Christians are stupid" thing. In fact when I was Christian I used to look up those things to see why they were stupid. (I used to think 90% of atheists were dumbasses because of the things I read lol)


EDIT: ah, I see LMNO, I thought it was more like "Oh, he must be stupid because he just joined" because I have experienced a lot of that with other forums. Sorry

We went through dozens of n00bs before our sub-goddess Hoshiko suggested the Suggestion.

Quote from: Skieth on March 10, 2009, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 10, 2009, 07:43:12 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 10, 2009, 07:38:00 PM
He said "most".


I don't think you count, and JW is a minority sect...

ROFL, well A) I don't count since I'm not a Christian (anymore) and B) I'm not even referencing JW's.... I just find that many atheists that 'know the bible better than most Christians' generally mean "I googled all this stuff about the Bible that I can throw in people's faces". Of course, I could be wrong about our friend Skieth

You are, and yes, I know A LOT of atheists like that (and they do piss me off)

Anything I have to say to any of my religious friends I get from reading the bible and thinking about it. I have NEVER done the whole "oh lets google it and see why Christians are stupid" thing. In fact when I was Christian I used to look up those things to see why they were stupid. (I used to think 90% of atheists were dumbasses because of the things I read lol)


EDIT: ah, I see LMNO, I thought it was more like "Oh, he must be stupid because he just joined" because I have experienced a lot of that with other forums. Sorry

Ah good. Then we won't be having the "well the Bible contradicts itself because there are different English words that seem to conflict etc? Most excellent! (DAMNIT see where that assumption got me??!!)

And your edit is just why the 50 post thing sometimes works ;-)

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Spidermang: He a spider. He a mang. He bofe.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Yes.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Its all three.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? 

Yes.

Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 06:38:07 AM
Nope, but I wouldn't hang out with a bunch of them for fun, either.

Then how can you smite them?   :?

Quote from: Kai on March 10, 2009, 11:41:40 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 03:03:06 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 10, 2009, 01:02:21 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 10, 2009, 12:00:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on March 09, 2009, 03:48:30 AM
Actually, symbols are somewhat arbitrary.

Words are not.

Not if we plan on having anything more than that "all is maya" crap.

Words are not meaningless. That doesn't mean that the fact that these particular scritch marks here indicate this sound here and that sound indicates a particular concept, that doesn't mean those conjunctions of lines and sound and meaning have any particular meaning above the meaning of the concept. Words are symbols, and symbols are somewhat arbitrary, not in MEANING, but in FORM.

For example, take the written letters "you". That a line crossed down to a longer line next to a circle next to an arch together indicate a particular sound and a particular meaning is arbitrary. The letters that indicate those sounds could have turned out like anything, those set of lines only have that particular meaning because we all agree they have that particular meaning. Its otherwise somewhat arbitrary.

Thats what I was saying. Not that "all is maya" or whatever you are talking about.

Sorry.  My symbols seem to have suddenly jumped out of phase with yours, arbitrarily, and I couldn't make heads or tails of your post.  No offense; it seems that I have gorgoplatz.  Arib?  Jsyt mig poop?

Okay.

Kai,

Knows when its time to leave a discussion.

NOTE TO SELF:  DO NOT OVERDO IRONY WITH BIOLOGISTS.  IT MAKES THEIR MITOCHLORIDES GO ALL WOBBLY.

TGRR,
DID THAT SECOND PART ON PURPOSE.

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:07:13 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Its all three.

Isn't.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2009, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:07:13 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Its all three.

Isn't.

Really now?

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:33:48 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2009, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:07:13 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Its all three.

Isn't.

Really now?

Srsly.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2009, 01:53:29 AM

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:33:48 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 11, 2009, 01:13:30 AM

Quote from: Skieth on March 11, 2009, 01:07:13 AM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Its all three.

Isn't.

Really now?

Srsly.

Oh em gee.

Well, it lasted 10 pages, at least.  Not a bad showing.

Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 08:47:59 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Spidermang: He a spider. He a mang. He bofe.

Okay so now I'm picturing Mangrove swinging from building to building saving the day by giving people massages and cracking the bad guys' backs. 

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 11, 2009, 01:38:43 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2009, 08:47:59 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 10, 2009, 01:14:16 PM
Wait, so now is it a joke wrapped in a religion or has it changed to a religion wrapped in a joke? I'm so confused. 

Spidermang: He a spider. He a mang. He bofe.

Okay so now I'm picturing Mangrove swinging from building to building saving the day by giving people massages and cracking the bad guys' backs. 

Mangrove! Fuck yeah. I was having flashbacks to klock kaos but mangrove is much better  :lulz:

I appreciate your post, Nigel. oftentimes lately I find I'm reluctant to talk about religion at all because the mere mention of anything religious seems to just start a shitstorm of ridicule that makes me feel uncomfortable.

it's entirely possible that my discomfort is rooted in my uncertainty over the form of my "religion" or "spirituality" or whatever it would be labeled if I were to give it one, which I'd rather not. even using the word "beliefs" seems to be an invitation for people to criticize, advise, or ridicule, plus it reminds me too much of my mother's statement of her "beliefs" which in my estimation was deliberately vague so as to avoid having any kind of belief in anything.

I spent 20 years in a fundamentalist (and corrupt) cult. one day I realized I was insufferably critical of people (outsiders) who I would have actually wanted to have as friends, except that the rule-set I'd embraced made friendship impossible. that led me to question things I'd been too afraid to question (long story, although anyone who's been in a cult might have a clue about the fear of appearing to be a non-conformist) and eventually led to breaking away completely.

I'm more or less a spiritual agnostic at this point. I don't actually know what that entails from day to day.

all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

it struck me as ironic. it continues to both amuse and annoy me to this day.

also, a question for those who state they know more about christianity than their christian friends.... what is christianity? I don't really want you to answer me since I suspect it might be a derailment and I don't really care what you think it is, but the point I do want to make is there are as many flavors of christianity as there are flavors of ice cream, and familiarity with religious scriptures does not equate to familiarity with interpretation and practice across the various sects, so the statement of superior knowledge seems both arrogant and ignorant.

Ice cream is better.

Yes, there are better things to have pissing matches over than who knows religion better than someone else.

And welcome to the fold. 

Quote from: potato on March 11, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
I spent 20 years in a fundamentalist (and corrupt) cult.

Stories, stories and more stories, pls.

Liek, immediately, or I will be forced to flame you :walken:

Yeah, I want to know what the cult was. 


Also, I think what most people mean when they say, "I know more about xtianity, etc" is that they know biblical texts better than some xtians they know.  Like the full context if Isaiah 14, and all that.

Welcome, potato! I'm honored that my rant inspired your first post. Glad you're here, and I like your name.

Quote from: potato on March 11, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
I appreciate your post, Nigel. oftentimes lately I find I'm reluctant to talk about religion at all because the mere mention of anything religious seems to just start a shitstorm of ridicule that makes me feel uncomfortable.

it's entirely possible that my discomfort is rooted in my uncertainty over the form of my "religion" or "spirituality" or whatever it would be labeled if I were to give it one, which I'd rather not. even using the word "beliefs" seems to be an invitation for people to criticize, advise, or ridicule, plus it reminds me too much of my mother's statement of her "beliefs" which in my estimation was deliberately vague so as to avoid having any kind of belief in anything.

I spent 20 years in a fundamentalist (and corrupt) cult. one day I realized I was insufferably critical of people (outsiders) who I would have actually wanted to have as friends, except that the rule-set I'd embraced made friendship impossible. that led me to question things I'd been too afraid to question (long story, although anyone who's been in a cult might have a clue about the fear of appearing to be a non-conformist) and eventually led to breaking away completely.

I'm more or less a spiritual agnostic at this point. I don't actually know what that entails from day to day.

all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

it struck me as ironic. it continues to both amuse and annoy me to this day.

also, a question for those who state they know more about christianity than their christian friends.... what is christianity? I don't really want you to answer me since I suspect it might be a derailment and I don't really care what you think it is, but the point I do want to make is there are as many flavors of christianity as there are flavors of ice cream, and familiarity with religious scriptures does not equate to familiarity with interpretation and practice across the various sects, so the statement of superior knowledge seems both arrogant and ignorant.

This is a good first post. I give you your first mittens, thusly:

:mittens:

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 11, 2009, 06:55:12 PM
And welcome to the fold. 

thank you.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 11, 2009, 07:00:33 PM
Stories, stories and more stories, pls.
Liek, immediately, or I will be forced to flame you

all in good time. too many stories before dinner spoils the appetite.

Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 07:06:24 PM
Yeah, I want to know what the cult was. 
Also, I think what most people mean when they say, "I know more about xtianity, etc" is that they know biblical texts better than some xtians they know.  Like the full context if Isaiah 14, and all that.

perhaps that is what they mean, but what they're saying is they expect people to be as well-read as a theologian and that's just not practical for most people. if, culturally, sacred texts are entrusted to few, who spend the time reading and interpreting them for the flock, then it follows that the flock won't be as well-read as their spiritual leaders. that doesn't mean they (the flock) don't have the right to name themselves members of the flock... so maybe people should just say what they mean. I'm pretty sure I know a fuck of a lot more bible passages than most christians, but I know fuck-all when it comes to why they've chosen to interpret the writings the way they do.

Quote from: Nigel on March 11, 2009, 07:16:33 PM
Welcome, potato! I'm honored that my rant inspired your first post. Glad you're here, and I like your name.

thank you. potatoes spend most of their time underground and have many eyes.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 11, 2009, 07:28:53 PM
This is a good first post. I give you your first mittens, thusly:

thank you. what are the mittens for?

:mittens: = general praise

You can lead a whore to water, but you can't make her have sex with you. Maybe.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 11, 2009, 06:55:12 PM
Yes, there are better things to have pissing matches over than who knows religion better than someone else.

Name one.

Quote from: LMNO on March 11, 2009, 12:32:25 PM
Well, it lasted 10 pages, at least.  Not a bad showing.

It's still going.  You CAN go off topic for a few posts without losing the thread, you know.

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 12, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
You can lead a whore to water, but you can't make her have sex with you. Maybe.

I'm sure that sounded witty when you wrote it.   :kingmeh:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 12, 2009, 01:37:00 AM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 12, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
You can lead a whore to water, but you can't make her have sex with you. Maybe.

I'm sure that sounded witty when you wrote it.   :kingmeh:

Yeah, I didn't get that one either.

Quote from: Jenne on March 12, 2009, 02:36:20 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 12, 2009, 01:37:00 AM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 12, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
You can lead a whore to water, but you can't make her have sex with you. Maybe.

I'm sure that sounded witty when you wrote it.   :kingmeh:

Yeah, I didn't get that one either.

Sounds like we have another soundbite-bot.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 12, 2009, 02:37:33 AM

Quote from: Jenne on March 12, 2009, 02:36:20 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 12, 2009, 01:37:00 AM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 12, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
You can lead a whore to water, but you can't make her have sex with you. Maybe.

I'm sure that sounded witty when you wrote it.   :kingmeh:

Yeah, I didn't get that one either.

Sounds like we have another soundbite-bot.

One that's somewhat defective, too.

Potato, I'm  glad you brought up the difference between being an adherent and being a scholar, although with some traditions I think there's a huge overlap. I've at times found myself discussing American indian traditions with anthropologists who expect me to know far more than I do about various tribes, to which my only answer is that one does not have to be a scholar of all things indian in order to be indian, any more than it's reasonable to expect every white person to be encompassingly familiar with all European cultures and traditions, or every black person to be a scholar of Africa. It would seem that being Christian might reasonably demand a fair depth of knowledge about the Bible, at least, but then again I think that there is a cultural Christianity as well, and if we are going to accept any other religious communities as a subculture, then Christianity can't really be excepted.

I'm not talking about playing "gotcha!" when someone says they're xtian, I'm talking about people who say, "because the bible says so", and then can't cite the passage, or even the right book.  I mean, that's about as bad as someone talking about physics and saying, "it's because of Quantum."

I mean, if you're going to use it as your primary source, you should have some passing knowledge of it.

Its because the Bible is quantum.

Quote from: Cain on March 12, 2009, 02:37:02 PM
Its because the Bible is quantum.

The universe doesn't have to decide if Jesus is dead until you roll back the stone in front of the cave.

:mccain:

Alternatively, humanity can understand God's plan, but once they do, they don't know when its going to happen.  And if they do know when its going to happen, they cannot know how.

You realize you're one aphorism away from starting the next new age cult, right?

Copenhagen Jesus-ism!

It's Standard Model Christianity.


Find Jesus in the Quark!

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 02:44:30 PM
You realize you're one aphorism away from starting the next new age cult, right?

It's about time Cain caught a break, financially.

Fuck yeah.

My immediate debt is actually now paid off, fortunately.  Assuming I'm not dragged off to work in a salt mine before, I should be out of the red by the summer or so.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
I'm not talking about playing "gotcha!" when someone says they're xtian, I'm talking about people who say, "because the bible says so", and then can't cite the passage, or even the right book.  I mean, that's about as bad as someone talking about physics and saying, "it's because of Quantum."

I mean, if you're going to use it as your primary source, you should have some passing knowledge of it.

Well, sure... though I think expecting people to memorize chapter and verse is a little ridiculous... in fact, Christians who can cite chapter and verse are people to be assiduously avoided in my little world, because how annoying is that? If they're citing the Bible as their primary source but they haven't even read the passage in question, or if they're claiming it says something it doesn't say at all, I understand calling them on it. However, for centuries very few Christians ever read the Bible at all... that's just not how their religion is structured. It was considered dangerous for the common man to have direct access to the Word of God for hundreds of years-- the whole thing is built around an authority structure, taking the word of the priests. Christians have only had widespread access to the Bible for about four hundred years, and for most of that time the majority was illiterate anyway.

I'm not interested in a religion where I seek truth from priests rather than from experiences... but if that's how their religion works, how can it be fair to judge them for doing it? I'm also not interested in a religion where I would seek truth from books rather than experiences.

the cult I was in was one of those "chapter and verse" groups, and it was ingrained in the culture that it was FUN to humiliate the ignorant masses by demanding chapter and verse for every statement of faith. the end result is that many conversations that would have passed the time enjoyably were derailed by the cultish mean streak of having to be "right" about all things concerning the bible.

perhaps instead of railing on someone who answers "because the bible says so" and can't cite the passage, it'd be better to either walk away from the conversation or continue with a simple acceptance that that is what the person believes the bible says.

plus, you can go fucking google any idea or word in the bible and get all the context you need, or 20-30 additional interpretations thereof, in a matter of minutes if you really need to.

like I said, I know a lot of bible passages but I've only googled it once in the last few years when someone suggested bathsheba "asked for it". because THAT actually was stupid. otherwise, I get bored listening to people drone on about jesus, but it's their faith and I can limit my exposure very easily.

So, if they get their knowledge of what it means to be a Xtian from the preacher, and aren't expected to read the source material, and are allowed to misquote and mis-attribute it, then why have a bible at all?  Doesn't it all boil down to the ultimate "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 03:55:14 PM
So, if they get their knowledge of what it means to be a Xtian from the preacher, and aren't expected to read the source material, and are allowed to misquote and mis-attribute it, then why have a bible at all?  Doesn't it all boil down to the ultimate "appeal to authority" fallacy?

Dude, he's talking about Christianity... its all appeal to authority.  :lulz:

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
I'm not talking about playing "gotcha!" when someone says they're xtian, I'm talking about people who say, "because the bible says so", and then can't cite the passage, or even the right book.  I mean, that's about as bad as someone talking about physics and saying, "it's because of Quantum."

I mean, if you're going to use it as your primary source, you should have some passing knowledge of it.

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

If you have any actual religion at all you should at least look at other religions (not all, but one or two) to see if they are more "real" to you. Hardly any of the really religious people I know have ever considered another religion. And they have barely even looked into their own religion. I mean I'm not saying you need to know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION EVER, but you should at least know enough to defend your religion against someone of a different religion.

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
I'm not talking about playing "gotcha!" when someone says they're xtian, I'm talking about people who say, "because the bible says so", and then can't cite the passage, or even the right book.  I mean, that's about as bad as someone talking about physics and saying, "it's because of Quantum."

I mean, if you're going to use it as your primary source, you should have some passing knowledge of it.

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

If you have any actual religion at all you should at least look at other religions (not all, but one or two) to see if they are more "real" to you. Hardly any of the really religious people I know have ever considered another religion. And they have barely even looked into their own religion. I mean I'm not saying you need to know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION EVER, but you should at least know enough to defend your religion against someone of a different religion.

Meh, I could defend my religion against any belief system... and it was still all shit. Defending one's belief system may be useful for some people that like to debate religion... but I think I would much prefer the people that say "I dunno, it feels right to me". The spag that argues, thinks he KNOWS THE REALLY REAL TRUTH. The other person is just going off of their experience and neurological system.

They're both likely deluded... but the guy with all the defensive stuff is gonna be much more of an asshole to hang out with.

:fnord:

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 12, 2009, 04:15:00 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
I'm not talking about playing "gotcha!" when someone says they're xtian, I'm talking about people who say, "because the bible says so", and then can't cite the passage, or even the right book.  I mean, that's about as bad as someone talking about physics and saying, "it's because of Quantum."

I mean, if you're going to use it as your primary source, you should have some passing knowledge of it.

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

If you have any actual religion at all you should at least look at other religions (not all, but one or two) to see if they are more "real" to you. Hardly any of the really religious people I know have ever considered another religion. And they have barely even looked into their own religion. I mean I'm not saying you need to know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION EVER, but you should at least know enough to defend your religion against someone of a different religion.

Meh, I could defend my religion against any belief system... and it was still all shit. Defending one's belief system may be useful for some people that like to debate religion... but I think I would much prefer the people that say "I dunno, it feels right to me". The spag that argues, thinks he KNOWS THE REALLY REAL TRUTH. The other person is just going off of their experience and neurological system.

They're both likely deluded... but the guy with all the defensive stuff is gonna be much more of an asshole to hang out with.

:fnord:

It isn't like I talk about religion a lot or even very often. Its just a subject that comes up on occasion. And saying "I just believe" is stupid in my opinion(which isn't worth much). Because for all they know everything the preacher told them could be a lie. The (for this example, they are Christian) bible could have a chapter that says it is all a load of crock and that you should go kill babies.

Saying "I just believe" is like saying "Mommy said so so it much be real =D". You don't even know what you believe in.

i noticed this topic has really come up in regular conversation with more frequency lately.
I remember back in the 80's and most of the 90's it was almost considered rude to bring up religion when in conversation with someone.

I suppose that for me, it's like getting the question wrong twice.

"Dude, not only is the Bible not the literal word of God, you don't even know what it says!"

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

You don't have to accept it, but that doesn't change anything for him. Nawmean?

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM
If you have any actual religion at all you should at least look at other religions (not all, but one or two) to see if they are more "real" to you. Hardly any of the really religious people I know have ever considered another religion. And they have barely even looked into their own religion. I mean I'm not saying you need to know EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR RELIGION EVER, but you should at least know enough to defend your religion against someone of a different religion.

I don't understand your logic here at all. You think people should shop around for the best religion... why? If they found it so easy to just swap out their old one for a new one, they probably wouldn't have religion at all because that shows a lack of faith, and without faith, what's the point?

I don't understand why people would need to "defend their religion against someone of another religion". Religion is illogical and indefensible. What's to defend? What, do you think that if a Hindu and a Jew got in an argument about their respective religions and the Hindu won, it would somehow magically take away the Jew's faith? How could such an argument be "won", anyway?

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:19:37 PM
It isn't like I talk about religion a lot or even very often. Its just a subject that comes up on occasion. And saying "I just believe" is stupid in my opinion(which isn't worth much). Because for all they know everything the preacher told them could be a lie. The (for this example, they are Christian) bible could have a chapter that says it is all a load of crock and that you should go kill babies.

Saying "I just believe" is like saying "Mommy said so so it much be real =D". You don't even know what you believe in.

Skieth, did you read the OP at all?

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

What?

I understand and agree with your inability to accept either reason(s) for believing, but believing because it helps one get through life and believing because it was ingrained in you during your childhood are two very different things. They might be related, but ultimately they're different.

Also, something like 50% of all Americans convert to a different religion at some point in their lives. Accusing those people of believing in something because mom and dad told them so would be pretty counterproductive.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 04:33:16 PM
I suppose that for me, it's like getting the question wrong twice.

"Dude, not only is the Bible not the literal word of God, you don't even know what it says!"

Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Quote from: Cainad on March 12, 2009, 05:37:13 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 12, 2009, 04:10:58 PM

See, this is kind of what I meant when I said I hate people who don't know about their religion and blindly accept it.

This is literally a conversation between me and someone I know:

Me: "Ok, so why do you believe in god?"

Him: "Well, Jesus has just worked in my life and he has helped me through the bad parts of it, so I believe in him"

I mean I just can't accept that. You have no idea about your religion and you only follow it because mommy and daddy told you to.

What?

I understand and agree with your inability to accept either reason(s) for believing, but believing because it helps one get through life and believing because it was ingrained in you during your childhood are two very different things. They might be related, but ultimately they're different.

Also, something like 50% of all Americans convert to a different religion at some point in their lives. Accusing those people of believing in something because mom and dad told them so would be pretty counterproductive.

Keep in mind that most of those "converting" are just "converting" from one brand of Christian to another brand, like Baptist to Lutheran.

Religious Faith + accepting what the guys in the hats tell you as gospel = the equivalent of running your pc without a firewall and antivirus

There are a lot of "hackers" out there, if you point blank refuse to apply critical analysis to your belief-system, especially when dealing with outrageous far-fetched shit, you will be exploited, it's just a matter of time.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 12, 2009, 05:46:22 PM
Religious Faith + accepting what the guys in the hats tell you as gospel = the equivalent of running your pc without a firewall and antivirus

There are a lot of "hackers" out there, if you point blank refuse to apply critical analysis to your belief-system, especially when dealing with outrageous far-fetched shit, you will be exploited, it's just a matter of time.

Well, sure, I'm not disputing that it's a bad idea... simply because Thinking For Yourself, Schmuck is ALWAYS a good idea. It's just that when people start laying down the rules THEY think faith "ought" to be lived by, I feel compelled to point out that their opinions make absolutely no difference to other people's faith, and are typically irrelevant.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 05:48:23 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 06:06:46 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 05:48:23 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

Quote from: Cainad on March 12, 2009, 06:10:41 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 06:06:46 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 05:48:23 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

...and?

So how can a person claim that "the" bible "is" the literal word of God, if they can't even identify which translation to use?


...Lemme guess.  "All translations are correct, even the ones that contradict each other," right?

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

Oh, I don't think much of Christians in general, don't get me wrong. It just strikes me that arguing against believing in the Bible because it's illogical is like arguing with a tree for growing.

Their arguments are and will always be completely circular, because religion is not logical. It doesn't need to be: that's not it's function.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
So how can a person claim that "the" bible "is" the literal word of God, if they can't even identify which translation to use?


...Lemme guess.  "All translations are correct, even the ones that contradict each other," right?

No, the one their church uses is the correct one, of course.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Anyway, that's not where I wanted to go.

I think the reason it irks me is that it's kinda like someone saying, "I'm a Conservative Republican, and I believe in larger government, more taxes, and social welfare."


What they actually believe in and what they say they believe in are two very different things.  

Oh, I don't think much of Christians in general, don't get me wrong. It just strikes me that arguing against believing in the Bible because it's illogical is like arguing with a tree for growing.

Their arguments are and will always be completely circular, because religion is not logical. It doesn't need to be: that's not it's function.

I'm not saying they shouldn't "believe in the bible". 

It's that they're believeing what they think is in the bible, instead of what's actually there.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 06:50:15 PM
I'm not saying they shouldn't "believe in the bible". 

It's that they're believeing what they think is in the bible, instead of what's actually there.

who gets to decide what's actually there?

What?

Was this guy I think
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/fondue_constantine_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg)

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 06:55:17 PM
What?

if you're replying to my question, "who gets to decide what's actually there", that's all I'm asking.

for instance:
is it a history book? if so, what's actually there are historical records.
is it a book of parables? if so, what's actually there are life lessons expressed in figurative language.
is it a book of poetry? if so, what's actually there are writings of praise and fear.
is it all of those and more? which parts are which? do the historical records contain any lessons? any strange customs that need to be understood in context of the culture in which they're written? should the parables be narrowly interpreted, or do they have fluid application in different cultural contexts?

everyone is going to think the bible says something... same with other spiritual texts... same with other categories of writings. commentaries exist for novels, historical records, spiritual writings and on and on and on.

seriously, if someone wants to believe someone and it's not hurting anyone, who cares?

You're not adressing my point.  You're talking about intepretation of what's in the bible.  I'm talking about the words themselves.

I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 07:18:02 PM
You're not adressing my point.  You're talking about intepretation of what's in the bible.  I'm talking about the words themselves.

But even the words themselves are up for debate. I have yet to see anything that one could call a completely unbiased interpretation of the 66 books that make up the OT/NT in most christian systems.

JW's claim that theirs is the most accurate because they reinserted the Name of God, where the KJV put LORD and GOD (rather than Lord and God which reference other entities).

The KJV itself has a number of instances where the words it uses are simply so archaic that a modern human is likely to mistranslate the Kings English.

The Living Bible, on the other hand is full of 'editor' commentary. So when King Solomon says that "The Dead are conscious of nothing" and that they return to the dust, the editors of The Living Bible have a footnote which states that Solomon was depressed and these statements don't reflect the Truth.

So, unless someone has a strong grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, plus access to all the oldest scrolls and manuscripts still available, plus a deep understanding of the social and ethnic dynamics of the ancient Hebrews and First century Greeks/Christians/Jews/Romans.... they're not gonna know what the book actually says. They have to trust the interpreter.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 12, 2009, 07:22:55 PM
I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Ah oh... never mind my last post then.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 12, 2009, 07:26:24 PM

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 12, 2009, 07:22:55 PM
I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Ah oh... never mind my last post then.

Well, that was my interpretation of what he was getting at.  I could be wrong.  What's with all this God talk lately anyway?  I'm gonna go somewhere else and talk about football, beer, and women.  Have at it spags. 

For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

It's kind of a bummer that any given discussion about religion or faith eventually degenerates to talking about Christians and Christianity. I think too many people see the word "religion" and in some conditioned way subconsciously translate it to "Christian", so that it becomes almost impossible to discuss religion without it turning into a conversation about how stupid Christians are.

Every time I try to reply to this thread, I look at what I've typed and then I feel dumb. :sad:

It sure would be nice if I had the wherewithal to finish my attempts to discuss The Religious Case Against Belief in that one thread I made. I thought it was an interesting and fairly original take on this whole mess.

sorry Nigel, I didn't really want to go there either. I participated in defending a christian's right to call themselves a christian or say the bible says something other people don't think it says because I don't see it as any different from a villager going to the oracle, or a tribe member going to the shaman. they don't read it for themselves, they take it on faith and who gives a shit?

I have a voodoo doll on my desk and I feel good when I poke it. there's no logic in that but I don't care.

Quote from: potato on March 12, 2009, 08:23:46 PM
sorry Nigel, I didn't really want to go there either. I participated in defending a christian's right to call themselves a christian or say the bible says something other people don't think it says because I don't see it as any different from a villager going to the oracle, or a tribe member going to the shaman. they don't read it for themselves, they take it on faith and who gives a shit?

I have a voodoo doll on my desk and I feel good when I poke it. there's no logic in that but I don't care.

Yes.

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

oh, I get it now. it's not the WORDS, it's the INFERENCES. so people take on faith inferences made by others and that bothers you?

Potato, am I related to you? (sudden sneaking suspicion)

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 08:53:47 PM
Potato, am I related to you? (sudden sneaking suspicion)

yes.

sorry I thought you realized who I was.... you know, cult and crazy mother. was it the voodoo doll that gave it away?

I wasn't sure it was you until you brought up the indian thing. I should have known from your avatar though, that totally looks just like you.

I actually didn't get here because of blood, it was the damned nethernet.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 07:54:34 PM
It's kind of a bummer that any given discussion about religion or faith eventually degenerates to talking about Christians and Christianity. I think too many people see the word "religion" and in some conditioned way subconsciously translate it to "Christian", so that it becomes almost impossible to discuss religion without it turning into a conversation about how stupid Christians are.

:lulz:

you gotta troll more atheist sites

Ok, I'm gonna try to answer LMNO's question about which translation etc. Then, if my ride isn't here, I'll even try to tie it back to a more broad discussion of religion, cause I don't want Nigel to send her ancestors to poke me with sticks.

Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW which translation is correct. They KNOW this because "the faithful and discrete slave class" (FDS) run the organization and in the 1950's, "The Governing Body" determined that there was not currently an accurate translation. Thus the New World Translation was born. The reason that JW's KNOW the translation is accurate, is because The Governing Body are representatives of The FDS and they were in charge of the Translation. The FDS got the translation correct because they are God's representatives on Earth. Further, the interpretation of the Bible accepted by JW's is the interpretation as defined by the Watchtower and other publications from the Watchtower, Bible and Tract Society. The interpretations there are correct because the Writing Committee is overseen by members of the FDS and they are God's channel to His people.

Now, most JW's will be able to accurately tell you what is in the Bible, often word for word, chapter and verse. They will expound on that scripture and know how to tie that scripture to a dozen other scriptures to create a complete argument supported in most bibles... though most accurately in the NWT (though JW's have been taught that it is always best to use the "householders" Bible to prove scripture until they're comfortable with NWT).

JW's study, they meditate, they dig deeply into scripture and spend countless hours learning the right answers to whatever objections they might be greeted with at the door.

YET, IT STILL BOILS DOWN TO FAITH. They have to have faith that the FDS is what these people claim, made up of the people who claim it and doing what they claim it does. If one cannot accept that leap, then there is no basis for belief.

If we replace FDS with The Nicene Council and JW with 'Christian', you have the same story.

At some point, no matter how well you know the Bible, you just have to have blind faith that your foundation is solid.

*ride is here* more later*

Quote from: potato on March 12, 2009, 09:19:14 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 08:53:47 PM
Potato, am I related to you? (sudden sneaking suspicion)

yes.

sorry I thought you realized who I was.... you know, cult and crazy mother. was it the voodoo doll that gave it away?

I wasn't sure it was you until you brought up the indian thing. I should have known from your avatar though, that totally looks just like you.

I actually didn't get here because of blood, it was the damned nethernet.

It WOULD be the Nethernet! Hahahaha!

The crazy mom thing and the cult thing wasn't that much of a giveaway... it's a big Internet. :) It was when you made a snarky comment in exactly the same style I would have made a snarky comment in that the coincidences became too much to bear.

:lulz:

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 10:44:36 PM
It was when you made a snarky comment in exactly the same style I would have made a snarky comment in that the coincidences became too much to bear.

:lulz:

that is too funny! I thought I was being so obvious, but in the end it was the snark that gave me away.

and by "obvious" I don't mean rushing into the fray with sword drawn because we happened to have popped from the womb of the same crazy woman and I think I have an obligation to defend your position even if you're wrong. I only agree with you when I actually agree with you.  :lulz:

Oh, I'm altogether aware of that... :evil:

HEY GUYS, MEET MY SISTER!

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 11:08:56 PM
Oh, I'm altogether aware of that... :evil:

HEY GUYS, MEET MY SISTER!

:lulz:

The board may explode...

We're all gonna die! :ohnotache:

*continued*

So, anyway... my point is this. After all that crazy work, JW's are still just believing what their told. Just as much as the person who says "My Preacher Says ..." and doesn't know too much of the bible at all.

The latter is just more overtly annoying.  :lulz:

Religious people of whatever stripe or belief system have either faith or experiences (or both) as the base. Faith in their preacher, faith in some ancient council, faith in the person who taught you traditions or faith in a bunch of old  guys in New York... it's still faith in some guy. I used to feel far superior to the general infophobic Christians... people like my grandma who believed that Jesus' birthday date was in the Bible, and could tell you all sorts of stuff that was in the bible because her preacher said so. I thought I knew my shit because I had words on pages and good memorization.

I was going somewhere with this that was gonna wrap back around and I've completely forgotten where that was... so I think I'll just shut up now.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 11:08:56 PM
Oh, I'm altogether aware of that... :evil:

HEY GUYS, MEET MY SISTER!

HOLA, POTATO!

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 12, 2009, 11:37:55 PM
*continued*

So, anyway... my point is this. After all that crazy work, JW's are still just believing what their told. Just as much as the person who says "My Preacher Says ..." and doesn't know too much of the bible at all.

The latter is just more overtly annoying.  :lulz:

Religious people of whatever stripe or belief system have either faith or experiences (or both) as the base. Faith in their preacher, faith in some ancient council, faith in the person who taught you traditions or faith in a bunch of old  guys in New York... it's still faith in some guy. I used to feel far superior to the general infophobic Christians... people like my grandma who believed that Jesus' birthday date was in the Bible, and could tell you all sorts of stuff that was in the bible because her preacher said so. I thought I knew my shit because I had words on pages and good memorization.

I was going somewhere with this that was gonna wrap back around and I've completely forgotten where that was... so I think I'll just shut up now.

I think I have a feel for where you're going with it, and I agree.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2009, 05:33:18 PM
Putting aside "religion" which is a whole nother can of worms, the term "faith" is another one that is just too broad and open to personal interpretation that you can't really tar everyone with the same brush. As a general rule I will mercilessly mock people who profess to having "faith" in a god-based scenario but there are exceptions.

Well, I use the word faith to mean something you "just know." Like the fact that a bunch of Discordians will argue. That's something I have faith in.

I can also prove that Jesus Christ was a discordian, but first you have to let me kick you in the nuts as hard as I can.

Then, you too will see the light. ;)

Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2009, 05:39:01 PM
Faith is believing without reason. Religion is how you organize, implement or ornament that faith.

I'm not a big fan of organized religion, in fact I think it's generally pretty evil for the reasons you stated.

The "faith is a crutch" line is a pretty standard one... do you regard it as any more of a crutch than language, art, or technology?

Belief is a crutch. Faith just "is." It's faith: Like faith that getting up in the morning is worth the trouble.

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 09, 2009, 05:46:30 PM
I think faith can actually be pretty significant influences upon all 3 of those.  I mean, at a certain point, aren't we all relying upon "faith" at some point or another?  Faith that gravity works 100% of the time.  Faith that the sun is always going to be there.  I mean, if you boil it down, I'm not sure you can find anyone who doesn't have some kind of "faith-crutch"

Not everyone. Some work off of probability. As in: "It is highly proabable that the laws of physics will not change, because, to my perception they have not done so for thousands of years."

Then again, perhaps tomorrow the whole gravity thing will be off, but we deem that as improbable.

Perhaps we'll enter a "dark world" and turn into our totem animals like some Nintendo game. How will you cope with that?

Quote from: Tempest Virago on March 09, 2009, 11:10:26 PM
As an atheist, I think it's actually pretty fair to say that my disbelief in God/gods/higher powers is based on faith. If it was purely reason, you're probably right that I'd be an agnostic. However, I am no more capable of believing that it is possible there is a God, then religious people are capable of not believing in God, and I find it kind of offensive to be told that I'm only an atheist to piss off theists. I've tried multiple times to believe in some sort of higher power, but I just can't.

I call myself an atheist simply because that is the most accurate term for my beliefs.I have no interest in pissing off theists, and will even talk to evangelical Christians on the street if they're polite and I'm not doing anything at the time. I've also gone to a Sikh temple, and enjoyed myself.

In fact, I actually find theists' beliefs fascinating and like discussing it with them, which I hopefully do not do in a condescending way. I agree with what Ratatosk said, though, about finding people's personal experiences more interesting/valid than just them repeating what somebody else told them.

Yup. And that was exactly what the "good" atheists said to me. I just don't want to talk about fairy tales. Fairy tales are fun, but they're fairy tales. And they admitted it was an act of faith that they believed in "fairy tales" being fiction.

Believe me when I say that the term "agnostic" means functionally the same thing, and is less offensive to theists, in general.

If you're calling yourself an atheist, then the name itself says "I defy the existence of a god or gods." Even if semantically it literally means "I live without gods."

I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2009, 01:02:03 AM
I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

Damn. That's a real poser.  :?

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 12, 2009, 07:22:55 PM
I know exactly what LMNO is talking about.  The people who insist that a certain part of the Bible says a particular thing.  Not because they read it with their own eyes.  But because their pastor told them it was there.  So, it's like blind faith in the blind faith. 

Sounds more like P.T. Barnum to me.  :fap:

THIS THREAD IS HARD TO FOLLOW.

:discord:

Quote from: Cainad on March 12, 2009, 06:10:41 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 06:06:46 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 05:48:23 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 PM
Wait a second... how do YOU know it's not the literal word of their God? Are you assuming that there is a God (but only one) and that is not God's Word, or are you assuming that there is no God and therefore it can't be God's word? If their God is imaginary, does it make him not real? Or does it make him real in an imaginary sense? Santa Claus exists, although not literally. We all know what he looks like and how he behaves. So they have an imaginary God, and most of them more-or-less agree on what he's all about. If he's imaginary and this is the book that they imagine is his divine and literal word, then in a sense, is that not true?

Because of the Council of Nicaea, and good ol' King James, for starters.

Being neither a Christian nor a Bible scholar, I have only the vaguest idea of what you're talking about, AND ALSO have a hard time seeing how it's relevant because one could, if one was going to argue this, argue that a omnipotent God would make sure that the Bible was translated just the way He wanted it to be, and an imaginary God would be no different from an omnipotent one for this purpose.

But that's exactly the point. It's been translated multiple times, in multiple ways, with no clear indicator as to which one is the ACTUAL word of God.

Yup. Basically it's like playing the game "telephone." That's the Bible. Aramaic --> Latin --> vernacular languages, and stew with local politics such as King James'. Gutenburg was the original media pirate. There are so many "shout-outs" and courrier stamps in that thing, whichever version you use, that it needs to be treated as any other primary source. With utmost skepticism.

Quote from: potato on March 11, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

Quote from: Torodung on March 13, 2009, 01:33:29 AM

Quote from: potato on March 11, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

I don't like the concept of religion created around science. it's contradictory. I don't think atheists have created a religion around science, I think they've created a religion around an hypothesis (just as all good religions should be), which is just fine but it's not "science".

oh and btw, thanks for the hellos and welcomes and don't worry, Nigel and I don't blow stuff up too often.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2009, 01:02:03 AM
I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

about a year ago I would go with the holier then thous
but now Im leaning towards both

Also I guess i was wrong... Im starting to come to the conclusion that a lot of the militant atheism is starting to at least "feel" like a religion... which is hilarious if you think of it, unfortunately many of these people have no sense of humor

Im really glad I found a religion that at least realizes it's ridicules

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 13, 2009, 01:50:42 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2009, 01:02:03 AM


Im really glad I found a religion that at least realizes it's ridicules

:potd:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 13, 2009, 01:02:03 AM
I can't decide what's worse...the holier-than-thou religious types, or the smarmy-ass atheists.

They're the same thing.

Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 03:14:12 AM
Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

can you give me a for instance? because a theory should be testable, which should keep it within the realm of science. the ideas people form about theories might become the basis for religion, but ideas are in the realm of hypothesis.

Quote from: Nigel on March 12, 2009, 11:08:56 PM
Oh, I'm altogether aware of that... :evil:

HEY GUYS, MEET MY SISTER!

I'm scared.

Also, this thread needs to move slower, I can't follow it at work.   :argh!:

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 12, 2009, 07:25:45 PM
So, unless someone has a strong grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, plus access to all the oldest scrolls and manuscripts still available, plus a deep understanding of the social and ethnic dynamics of the ancient Hebrews and First century Greeks/Christians/Jews/Romans.... they're not gonna know what the book actually says. They have to trust the interpreter.

Nah, then they still may not have any idea what a passage says.  I know some of the new testament passages that are supposed to condemn gays are contested on the grounds that the words used don't exist anywhere else in antiquity.  The writer could have been talking about furniture for all we know.

Quote from: potato on March 13, 2009, 01:48:12 AM

Quote from: Torodung on March 13, 2009, 01:33:29 AM

Quote from: potato on March 11, 2009, 06:53:09 PM
all this has really led up to telling a story of an experience I had when I was in the cult. we were having statewide gathering/conference at a hotel and it just so happened that the athiests society was having one at the same time at the same hotel. both camps spent time examining displays and eavesdropping. the thing that struck me most was that there was essentially no difference in the materials presented or the fervor with which adherents embraced their position. the bumper stickers, the t-shirts, the books, the speakers... all the noise to get god and religion out of everything... it was itself a religion.

But the a-theists, the one holding conventions in hotels at least, are often so anti-religious and a-faithist that they can't see the religious nature of their organized activities. It's clear as day to the theists. They look at it and say, "Oh, you've created a religion around science" or "a religion around the state."

Just as anything, ANY organization, that organizes itself around the concept of hierarchy will eventually start to look like a church. It's happened to the law, and it's happening to the stock market. Hierarchy, applied indifferently as the ONLY way to "get r' done," is the problem here.

We need to look beyond ancient ideas like hierarchy and authority, as one of many ways to approach administration of effort.

I don't like the concept of religion created around science. it's contradictory. I don't think atheists have created a religion around science, I think they've created a religion around an hypothesis (just as all good religions should be), which is just fine but it's not "science".

Not really. In order to gain cred in the University system, which was authoritarian and religious in nature, modern scientists had to abscond with the works of Sir Issac Newton, amongst others, as the authority by which they would found their new "natural science." The real reason we have "laws" in science is because of this authority grab, necessary to overcome the prejudices of the 18th C university system.

Now, some "scientists" are making up such "laws," or at the very least overstating their case, to combat the certainty of morons who believe the world is 6,000 years old because it says so in a mistranslated book. It's the same old battle against authority based "knowledge."

Before the modern science movement, science was called "natural philosophy."

At about the point where a scientist says, "I'm trying to know and/or discover" instead of, "I'm determining if this model is useful," you know you have a a religious scientist. Some of them never quite get past the "YOU KNOW NOTHING" phase.

So the whole thing started quite religiously, a religion based around mathematics, and could quite easily descend right back. All it takes is an inflexible set of minds in a position of authority.

So do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's the nature of the problem. Authority is a bastard, and he's pissed off at anyone who thinks for themselves.

And because a pat answer always trumps a "who is to say?" he tends to win, in any circle.

Quote from: potato on March 13, 2009, 03:32:10 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 03:14:12 AM
Also, IMO there are people who have built a religious structure around some scientific theories, but as soon as they do that it stops being science.

can you give me a for instance? because a theory should be testable, which should keep it within the realm of science. the ideas people form about theories might become the basis for religion, but ideas are in the realm of hypothesis.

No good examples come to mind, but I'm talking about when people like an idea so much that they discard the science of it and revere the idea itself as an absolute, which is the point at which it ceases being a scientific idea for them (though it usually continues on being a scientific theory for others) and becomes a dogma.

Wow, Torodung rocked that reply.

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:27:31 AM
Wow, Torodung rocked that reply.

i don't think so, but too tired and drunkess to think

Maybe a context thing... I've probably been reading too much Vine Deloria.

1st of all if a model is useful or not has NOTHING to do with anything, and people get into science to know and understand how the natural world around them works.

QuoteSo do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's why everything is rigorously peer reviewed. There is no authority that judges work. Your peers have to be able to replicate your methods and experiments. If they can't be replicated your ideas don't become part of the scientific literature except maybe just as ideas to discuss

Quote from: potato on March 12, 2009, 08:33:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

oh, I get it now. it's not the WORDS, it's the INFERENCES. so people take on faith inferences made by others and that bothers you?

Let me try to be more clear.

Joe has a book.  It has a front cover which says "The Holy Book of Holiness," and only one page.  On that page, it says, "2+2=4".  Joe has never opened this book to read what's written inside it.

Joe's spiritual leader, Kevin, has told Joe that what is written in the book is "2+2=5".  Because Joe is a devout Kevin-ist, he believes Kevin completely.

Joe approaches Mary, and says, "The Holy Book of Holiness says that 2+2=5".

Mary, being a skeptical type and who has opened the book says, "No it doesn't.  It says 2+2=4."

Joe replies, "Well, even the devil can cite scripture."

Mary:  :argh!::hi5::?

Of course if Joe was to open his book it would say "2+2=5"

He's reading the KKV right? And I'm assuming Mary has the Orthodox :mrgreen:

Suppose we want to work out what 2+2 equals.

Do you suppose either of these versions would be of any use to us?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 12:30:48 PM
Of course if Joe was to open his book it would say "2+2=5"

He's reading the KKV right? And I'm assuming Mary has the Orthodox :mrgreen:

Suppose we want to work out what 2+2 equals.

Do you suppose either of these versions would be of any use to us?

Then you have that bastard Crowley who says that "2+2" is true and "2+2=4(or anything else I guess)" is false....

Kevin would say, "Even though it seems to say that 2+2=4, you are forgetting the One that is contained in everything, so therefore 2+2=4(+1), giving us 5.  Of course."

Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

My point being, of course, is that I personally would take two of whatever it was I was curious about and add another 2, then count them.

Voila: 2 Savannah Monitors + 2 white mice = 2 Savannah Monitors.

Then I'd have to encode my findings in an elaborate piece of artwork so I didn't get burned for heresy.

I'm biased against religion because it has a history of burning people for the crime of dicovering useful stuff.

I'm also personally biased against adopting it because it's a very closed and stagnant form of reality modelling and, therefore, utterly useless to me. I wouldn't want to impose this view on anyone who insists on believing it tho, there are opportunities to scam moneys off people like this. Even if I haven't yet tapped into this potential revenue stream it is reassuring to know that it's available if I need it. Customer gullibility is the holy grail of marketing.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 01:42:53 PM
My point being, of course, is that I personally would take two of whatever it was I was curious about and add another 2, then count them.

Voila: 2 Savannah Monitors + 2 white mice = 2 Savannah Monitors.

Then I'd have to encode my findings in an elaborate piece of artwork so I didn't get burned for heresy.

I'm biased against religion because it has a history of burning people for the crime of dicovering useful stuff.

I'm also personally biased against adopting it because it's a very closed and stagnant form of reality modelling and, therefore, utterly useless to me. I wouldn't want to impose this view on anyone who insists on believing it tho, there are opportunities to scam moneys off people like this. Even if I haven't yet tapped into this potential revenue stream it is reassuring to know that it's available if I need it. Customer gullibility is the holy grail of marketing.

I agree... but I would note that it was "Catholics" not 'religion' that were whacking on people for discovering useful stuff.   :wink:

However: A few pages back, we discussed "religion" as a calcified/ossified/petrified/putrified description of an indescribable trancendental experience.

If we take that description of "religion" forward, it becomes increasingly likely that a "religion" would be resistant to anything that runs counter to the "religion".

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.

Lest we forget the Talibans or Iran under the Ayatollah - it's the reason church and state should be kept separate. At least with a normal government things will be fucked up but nowhere near as bad as a rule by people who, by their vary nature, will believe in any old laughably ridiculous bullshit. When these people are given power it gets a lot messier a lot quicker than when your average power hungry would be dictator gets the reins.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM
However: A few pages back, we discussed "religion" as a calcified/ossified/petrified/putrified description of an indescribable trancendental experience.

If we take that description of "religion" forward, it becomes increasingly likely that a "religion" would be resistant to anything that runs counter to the "religion".

Some of us discussed it, but that doesn't mean all of us agree on that definition. I consider religion to be any structure you impose on your faith. ORGANIZED religion is an external structure imposed on your faith.

Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 02:17:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 02:03:27 PM

The Catholics aren't the only ones who destroyed opposition.  Even the Taoists have a psycho nutbag in their history.

Lest we forget the Talibans or Iran under the Ayatollah - it's the reason church and state should be kept separate. At least with a normal government things will be fucked up but nowhere near as bad as a rule by people who, by their vary nature, will believe in any old laughably ridiculous bullshit. When these people are given power it gets a lot messier a lot quicker than when your average power hungry would be dictator gets the reins.

this is a generalization that deserves some testing for veracity. I can think of several examples off the top of my head that "prove" the opposite, and I'm not political or a historian.

I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:08:11 PM

Quote from: potato on March 12, 2009, 08:33:05 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is written in the Old Testament that gays are not allowed to marry.


If you ask them where it says that, they won't know.  Because it's not there.  And while I think that basing your biases and prejudices because a book told you to is silly, basing it on a book that doesn't even say it is downright idiotic.

oh, I get it now. it's not the WORDS, it's the INFERENCES. so people take on faith inferences made by others and that bothers you?

Let me try to be more clear.

Joe has a book.  It has a front cover which says "The Holy Book of Holiness," and only one page.  On that page, it says, "2+2=4".  Joe has never opened this book to read what's written inside it.

Joe's spiritual leader, Kevin, has told Joe that what is written in the book is "2+2=5".  Because Joe is a devout Kevin-ist, he believes Kevin completely.

Joe approaches Mary, and says, "The Holy Book of Holiness says that 2+2=5".

Mary, being a skeptical type and who has opened the book says, "No it doesn't.  It says 2+2=4."

Joe replies, "Well, even the devil can cite scripture."

Mary:  :argh!::hi5::?

reminds me of a youtube series made by a gay law professor in an undisclosed New York University he called "Do Christian's Understand the Bible?"
My conclusion... no, most probably haven't, or if they have they only glanced over it, or tried to understand specific sections out of context...
which is also something I've observed from basic conversations with many of my Christian friends.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.

I only had time to read the OP, i didn't go through the whole thread so keep that in mind.

Nigel- I never understood religion as hard as I tried, so to me and me alone, I find it dumb only because I don't get it.
As far as for other people, it may work very well for them.
If you believe what you believe then that's what you believe and who am I to tell you anything different.
The only time I personally have a problem is when people kill each other over it or others try to push it on me or make me out to be a bad person because I don't believe.

You don't have to explain your beliefs to anyone. They're yours to have and you have the right to have them.

note- this was not meant to come across as bitchy or sarcastic, i can't tell if it did.

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:06:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.

We seem to have reached the point where we're arguing about how much we agree with each other.

Truce?

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 05:52:28 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 13, 2009, 05:06:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 03:28:38 PM
Hence my use of the word "if".

Were we to use your idea, which I agree is more user-based, it would have to depend on how rigid you made that personal structure imposed on your faith.  Then it would be up to the individual whether or not they accepted new ideas, challenges, and change to that structure.

You might agree that some people's structures refuse to allow dissent.

Sure they do, and that goes for anyone. Including Atheists.

We seem to have reached the point where we're arguing about how much we agree with each other.

Truce?

Yeah, I think we've hashed it as far as it can be hashed. :)

Quote from: potato on March 13, 2009, 03:50:53 PM
I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.

Hell no. IMO there's virtually no such thing as a good leader, leadership is one of those "necessary evils" with the emphasis on "evil" and a big question mark hanging over the "necessary" parts. My point is that strong religious conviction will make it worse never better

That depends on whether you lean towards the "compassion" side, or the "certainty of conviction" side.

I've been hesitant to add anything to this thread.  I've enjoyed hearing what everyone has had to say.

I spent the last four years (actually a lot longer) studying religion.  I'm still at a loss, I think I know less now then when I started out.  Some of the problems I think come from associations that the word religion brings up.  Such as religion being "irrational", etc.  I think there is an over emphasis on reason in our culture.  But I'm biased here by John Ralston Saul's - Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. 

The atheist position when stated in the movie "Religious", that all we have to do is get rid of religion and that will solve the world's problems is naive to say the least. 

Faith and Belief are both loaded words.  But we have both in daily life to some degree or we would come to the conclusion that there is no reason to go on. 

I liked the OP but I've seen some good discussion around the forum more so than plain out religion bashing.  Then again I haven't been around these parts that long. 

I'm still dealing with my own issues around the type of christianity that I was subjected to.  But I no longer have that burning 'all religious types are fools' that was my own rebellion against an oppressive religious structure. 

I still have problems discussing religion it was a social taboo, don't talk about religion, politics, sex, etc.

Whoops, gotta get back to work
                                           z_m

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 06:27:47 PM
That depends on whether you lean towards the "compassion" side, or the "certainty of conviction" side.

I lean toward the less mentally ill side. Institutional religion being a sort of viral form of schizophrenia.

You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 13, 2009, 06:11:05 PM

Quote from: potato on March 13, 2009, 03:50:53 PM
I'm completely in favor of separation of church and state, but lack of religion is not requisite to being a good leader or scientist, IMO.

Hell no. IMO there's virtually no such thing as a good leader, leadership is one of those "necessary evils" with the emphasis on "evil" and a big question mark hanging over the "necessary" parts. My point is that strong religious conviction will make it worse never better

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

"Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In theory, depending on how one perceived their belief system... beliefs could make a good leader. If the person believed that they were responsible to help the poor and needy or face God's wrath (that you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me). If the person believed that God demanded love over hate, even to one's enemies... maybe they would be a better leader.

In my opinion, dogmatic belief in fairy tales appears to generally indicate that your brain may not work really well in dealing with complexities like 'opinion', 'perception' etc. However, depending on the fairy tale it may promote some very good leadership qualities. I was kinda impressed with Carter's book "Our Endangered Values" where he applied strong Christian conviction in a way that appears far better for leading than many other 'leadership' books I've read.

my own personal opinion is that organized religion is that it is a form of marketing... even to a degree that it uses broad vocabulary to form memes that are suppose to fabricate some type of transcendence but in most cases they don't mean anything... which is something I've notice creeping into the so called new-atheists -at least the ones who are organizing in way's other then similar ideas and or thought processes. You see this a lot on some of the more militant youtube comments, which is why I say it has the "feel" of religion, though I don't think it is, or at least yet...

Where I think the main problem rises with religion is in the texts which were made to pass down the stories in where people try to explain life. Many of these explanations are now useless - for example the Earth was most likely created when small, rocky debris was attracted by gravity to larger debris and through accretion created a large planetary object.

Many of the organized religions explanations for things even outside of those which we have scientific explanations for also make make little if any sense
if x=y in one chapter
and y=z in another
then you must assume that x=yz
but here is a quick example from the bible which we are familiar with
if, as it says many times God is all knowing and omnipotent
then God=all knowing
but then when the people of Sodom and Gomorrah started to get interested in butt sex, God clearly says that he's going down to investigate so that he may "know" how bad it gets
sorry I don't have the quotation, but you could check it out, besides it's the crutch of the story, since he sends down two angels to check things out.
then all knowing must = not knowing
so then x can not = y
or y can not = z
it makes no sense
and there are plenty of other examples. We all know them as basically biblical contradictions

These can make sense to many of those who are religious if they see them as only attempts to explain transcendence. Them sure there would always be human error and just like in science just a flowed hypothesis
But if the texts are God's "direct words", or a collection of divine stores, like in the Abrahamic religions, then in order for x to = z you have to basically start making shit up... which is why I think Christians believe a vast majority of stuff that is not in their sacred texts. For example the Rapture appears no where in John's Apocalypse, or in the Essene Apocalypse (which is the book which John takes his apocalypse from, sometimes word for word), or the Book of Daniel (where the Essene's take their apocalypse from) and the idea of the rapture actually contradicts those books. But that idea is the foundation of which fundamentalists base their beliefs upon.
Which brings me to an interesting question, do religious people base their beliefs on the text, on the interpretation of the texts, or the bullshit that one has to make in order for the text to have continuity?

any pd'rs listen to pastor Melissa Scott?
i get a kick out of the language translation analysis of scripture she does,  i don't know what kind of christian she is but her bible study show is interesting.

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/whoIsPastor.html

http://www.pastormelissascott.com/lcVideos.html video clips

The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 06:06:17 AM
The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

ah it's all just a game.
I've been paying attention to the youtube wars as of late... usually it follows like this: some Christian makes a video that you could tell is made to solely get a response. The militant athiests move in..
the Christian gets to feel persecuted
the atheist gets to feel smarter then thou
then it's on to the next round
it's win, win

The real funny part is there are a few on both sides which are trying to make serious points and have a serious discussion
:lulz:

Youtube wars mean as much as SCA wars

just sayin'

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
Youtube wars mean as much as SCA wars

just sayin'

Balls.  In Youtube wars, the loser doesn't get stuck with Pennsylvania.

INFERIOR.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

Yes. And, unlike a lot of people, I have the experience of both sides of the fence. Ironically, during one of my "episodes" I got religion big-time. Through the process of recovery I gained a bit of insight on how the religion meme had affected me. It'd always been there, conditioning from early childhood, through education and various other propaganda streams but it was relatively benign. Insanity made it malignant, rapidly growing through my psyche like some kind of fucking uncontrollable logic tumour.

Since then I've revised my opinion that a little bit of religion isn't a dangerous thing. It's a highly irrational meme who's fundamental instrument is a surrender of will and it's like a little ticking timebomb. Maybe it will never blow up but one day it might and god will tell you to do something, potentially terrible, and you will be compelled to carry out his word. Why invite something like that into your head if you can possibly avoid it?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 14, 2009, 06:41:56 AM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 14, 2009, 06:06:17 AM
The funniest thing about atheists railing against religion:  They may as well get mad at the sun for rising.  Humans have religion because they NEED a belief structure of some sort.  And worshiping a god or gods is no sillier than worshiping, for example, little green paper rectangles.

ah it's all just a game.
I've been paying attention to the youtube wars as of late... usually it follows like this: some Christian makes a video that you could tell is made to solely get a response. The militant athiests move in..
the Christian gets to feel persecuted
the atheist gets to feel smarter then thou
then it's on to the next round
it's win, win

The real funny part is there are a few on both sides which are trying to make serious points and have a serious discussion
:lulz:

Unsurprising, really.  Both sides wouldn't do something unless it fufilled certain desires and without a win-win nature most people wouldn't engage in it.

I'm more and more convinced Foucault was right about everything, and that all power structures that come into conflict will in, a strategic sense, be mutually reinforcing.

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

yes you do
(http://saraschaefer.com/ss/middle_finger.jpg)

Two THREE words:

QUANTUM
PHYSICS
BIATCH

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 10:32:40 AM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

Yes. And, unlike a lot of people, I have the experience of both sides of the fence. Ironically, during one of my "episodes" I got religion big-time. Through the process of recovery I gained a bit of insight on how the religion meme had affected me. It'd always been there, conditioning from early childhood, through education and various other propaganda streams but it was relatively benign. Insanity made it malignant, rapidly growing through my psyche like some kind of fucking uncontrollable logic tumour.

Since then I've revised my opinion that a little bit of religion isn't a dangerous thing. It's a highly irrational meme who's fundamental instrument is a surrender of will and it's like a little ticking timebomb. Maybe it will never blow up but one day it might and god will tell you to do something, potentially terrible, and you will be compelled to carry out his word. Why invite something like that into your head if you can possibly avoid it?

It seems to me that, like many Westerners, your idea of "religion" is based on the Judeo-Christian model, and so your assumptions about religion revolve around it.

For what it's worth there's really nothing ironic about your swings between being extremely religious and extremely atheistic. I've seen that many people who are prone to an extreme in one direction are also prone to be extreme in the opposite direction should they ever change their minds... and interestingly, being extreme doesn't seem to offer any protection from being likely to change their minds.

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:53:27 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:53:27 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

They work the same way, otherwise you couldn't have word-problems in math and math couldn't be applied to anything in the real world. And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 06:30:49 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:53:27 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

They work the same way, otherwise you couldn't have word-problems in math and math couldn't be applied to anything in the real world. And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

... is this too hard for you?

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:08:00 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 10:32:40 AM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
You, of all people, are a proponent of sanity?

Yes. And, unlike a lot of people, I have the experience of both sides of the fence. Ironically, during one of my "episodes" I got religion big-time. Through the process of recovery I gained a bit of insight on how the religion meme had affected me. It'd always been there, conditioning from early childhood, through education and various other propaganda streams but it was relatively benign. Insanity made it malignant, rapidly growing through my psyche like some kind of fucking uncontrollable logic tumour.

Since then I've revised my opinion that a little bit of religion isn't a dangerous thing. It's a highly irrational meme who's fundamental instrument is a surrender of will and it's like a little ticking timebomb. Maybe it will never blow up but one day it might and god will tell you to do something, potentially terrible, and you will be compelled to carry out his word. Why invite something like that into your head if you can possibly avoid it?

It seems to me that, like many Westerners, your idea of "religion" is based on the Judeo-Christian model, and so your assumptions about religion revolve around it.

For what it's worth there's really nothing ironic about your swings between being extremely religious and extremely atheistic. I've seen that many people who are prone to an extreme in one direction are also prone to be extreme in the opposite direction should they ever change their minds... and interestingly, being extreme doesn't seem to offer any protection from being likely to change their minds.

This is what I find interesting about the nature of religion.  The PARADOX!!  I find myself able to sit between being an atheist on one hand and a polytheist on the other.  This is why people are so COOL, and strange, we are able to contain the wierdest contradictions within us and still walk around without our heads exploding.

This also points out why we can never really understand ourselves or anybody else fully.  People are just really bizarre because WE DO GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE OUR BELIEFS.  And these beliefs are never going to be 100% logical or re-inforcing without some subtle interior trickery going on in the unconscious.  Or so it would seem.

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 06:40:56 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 06:30:49 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:53:27 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

They work the same way, otherwise you couldn't have word-problems in math and math couldn't be applied to anything in the real world. And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

... is this too hard for you?

What on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

validity (in the math/logic sense) and the real word have *nothing* to do with each other.

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:08:00 PM

It seems to me that, like many Westerners, your idea of "religion" is based on the Judeo-Christian model, and so your assumptions about religion revolve around it.

Can't be avoided really it's how I was programmed. That said I've never seen any mainstream religion that didn't seem to have devolved into the same "just drink the fucking koolaid and don't ask questions" mentality that I enjoy poking fun at.

I do have a personal vendetta against born-again flavoured christianity, resulting from the time some of the crazy fucks attempted to brainwash me when I was about 12 but for the rest of the religious establishment I simply deride them because I can and they're ridiculous. IMO cheap laughs aren't any less funny than expensive ones.

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 07:42:08 PM
validity (in the math/logic sense) and the real word have *nothing* to do with each other.

It's true.

QuoteWhat on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

Hm. Not what was implied, my good sir.

Your analogy calls for a real-world analysis of "two apples".
Two apples are REAL things. Not numbers.
TWO is a number. "TWO APPLES" is a thing.

.'. Different rules.

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 07:49:31 PM

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 07:42:08 PM
validity (in the math/logic sense) and the real word have *nothing* to do with each other.

It's true.

QuoteWhat on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

Hm. Not what was implied, my good sir.

Your analogy calls for a real-world analysis of "two apples".
Two apples are REAL things. Not numbers.
TWO is a number. "TWO APPLES" is a thing.

.'. Different rules.

I already covered this by adding 2 white mice to 2 monitor lizards.

Just sayin

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 08:33:16 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 07:49:31 PM

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 07:42:08 PM
validity (in the math/logic sense) and the real word have *nothing* to do with each other.

It's true.

QuoteWhat on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

Hm. Not what was implied, my good sir.

Your analogy calls for a real-world analysis of "two apples".
Two apples are REAL things. Not numbers.
TWO is a number. "TWO APPLES" is a thing.

.'. Different rules.

I already covered this by adding 2 white mice to 2 monitor lizards.

Just sayin

So then 2 + 2 = 2?

:lulz:

Then by your logic 2+2=1

I have the other three, but I am only counting the ones I like.

That is stupid IMO.

I assumed that the lizards ate the mice. 2 lizards + 2 mice = 2 lizards?
Just joking around. Numbers are a silly thing.

:|

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 07:44:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:08:00 PM

It seems to me that, like many Westerners, your idea of "religion" is based on the Judeo-Christian model, and so your assumptions about religion revolve around it.

Can't be avoided really it's how I was programmed. That said I've never seen any mainstream religion that didn't seem to have devolved into the same "just drink the fucking koolaid and don't ask questions" mentality that I enjoy poking fun at.

I do have a personal vendetta against born-again flavoured christianity, resulting from the time some of the crazy fucks attempted to brainwash me when I was about 12 but for the rest of the religious establishment I simply deride them because I can and they're ridiculous. IMO cheap laughs aren't any less funny than expensive ones.

Sure, but your bias leads you to make statements like "even a tiny amount of religion is harmful", which may be true if your definition of religion requires it to be harmful, but you're still imposing your filters in areas where they may simply not apply. JUST NOW you added the qualifier "mainstream" to "religion", and that may make your filter fit better, but this isn't about "mainstream religion".

Quote from: Requia on March 14, 2009, 07:42:08 PM
validity (in the math/logic sense) and the real word have *nothing* to do with each other.

What she said. Also, take a fucking math class or STFU. We get that you don't get it. You COULD get it, if you took a math class or read some math books. The fact  that you don't want to do that doesn't invalidate that numbers and math are not restricted to counting real objects.

Add one lump of clay to one lump of clay = One lump of clay

Numbers much like lizard mice combination metaphors, are simplistic.
This is good for monkey minds.

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 14, 2009, 11:03:23 PM
Add one lump of clay to one lump of clay = One lump of clay

Numbers much like lizard mice combination metaphors, are simplistic.
This is good for monkey minds.

I suppose technically the mice still exist.
Just as the lumps of clay, although homogenized, are still different lumps of clay (in that to make the single lump as big as it is, you need both lumps).
However, both views are just vistas of the same event.
Any example of numbers in reality can be corrupted in this way.

So basically what I'm saying is that this argument will get nowhere until we all take Nigel's advice or STFU.

S'what I'm sayin'.

I somehow never got around to reading this thread, and now I find that I've missed a mathematics argument!  :cry:

So anyway, Nigel, if you say something about religion and I start trying to get you to defend it, know that (for me anyway) it's less of a "OMG RELIGION MUST GTFO" thing than a "I wonder how far this will stretch before it snaps?" kind of thing.  I do the exact same thing whenever somebody hands me a plastic doodad.

GA,
destructive testing, bitches!

Quote from: Urraco on March 14, 2009, 11:24:29 PM

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 14, 2009, 11:03:23 PM
Add one lump of clay to one lump of clay = One lump of clay

Numbers much like lizard mice combination metaphors, are simplistic.
This is good for monkey minds.

I suppose technically the mice still exist.
Just as the lumps of clay, although homogenized, are still different lumps of clay (in that to make the single lump as big as it is, you need both lumps).
However, both views are just vistas of the same event.
Any example of numbers in reality can be corrupted in this way.

So basically what I'm saying is that this argument will get nowhere until we all take Nigel's advice or STFU.

S'what I'm sayin'.

Its just one lump of clay. Did you define your mice in terms of the different atoms that make them?

I'm rolling Phoenician style, we have no 0, so no one can ever bet their bottom dollar.

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 14, 2009, 11:41:20 PM

Quote from: Urraco on March 14, 2009, 11:24:29 PM

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 14, 2009, 11:03:23 PM
Add one lump of clay to one lump of clay = One lump of clay

Numbers much like lizard mice combination metaphors, are simplistic.
This is good for monkey minds.

I suppose technically the mice still exist.
Just as the lumps of clay, although homogenized, are still different lumps of clay (in that to make the single lump as big as it is, you need both lumps).
However, both views are just vistas of the same event.
Any example of numbers in reality can be corrupted in this way.

So basically what I'm saying is that this argument will get nowhere until we all take Nigel's advice or STFU.

S'what I'm sayin'.

Its just one lump of clay. Did you define your mice in terms of the different atoms that make them?

I'm rolling Phoenician style, we have no 0, so no one can ever bet their bottom dollar.

-.-

0+0+0+0=4

I have 4 numbers. (five now)

So really 0+0+0+0=4=5=6=7=8=9=10...

Makes sence.

In soviet Russia 2+2=3

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 10:56:42 PM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 07:44:26 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:08:00 PM

It seems to me that, like many Westerners, your idea of "religion" is based on the Judeo-Christian model, and so your assumptions about religion revolve around it.

Can't be avoided really it's how I was programmed. That said I've never seen any mainstream religion that didn't seem to have devolved into the same "just drink the fucking koolaid and don't ask questions" mentality that I enjoy poking fun at.

I do have a personal vendetta against born-again flavoured christianity, resulting from the time some of the crazy fucks attempted to brainwash me when I was about 12 but for the rest of the religious establishment I simply deride them because I can and they're ridiculous. IMO cheap laughs aren't any less funny than expensive ones.

Sure, but your bias leads you to make statements like "even a tiny amount of religion is harmful", which may be true if your definition of religion requires it to be harmful, but you're still imposing your filters in areas where they may simply not apply. JUST NOW you added the qualifier "mainstream" to "religion", and that may make your filter fit better, but this isn't about "mainstream religion".

I'm just trying to clarify my position. The subject of "mainstream" religion came up and yeah, I'm against that. Adopting your own belief system on the basis that you are aware that that's all it is - that's what a smart person would do. Take a step back - I'm pretty sure me and you are in agreement on the religion issue.

I've heard actual, bona fide, dog-collared, pulpit owning clergy say they don't believe a single word of the bible is historical fact but as a personal code of behaviour they see it as being good enough to follow. If there were a few more like that my opinion would do a u-turn pretty fucking rapid.

But, when the fread led, as any with the word "religion" in the title is almost guaranteed to, to the more popular, abdication of thought, school, I chucked in my 2c. That's the problem with the word "religion" lot of negative connotations.

sue me  :wink:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 14, 2009, 11:49:54 PM

I've heard actual, bona fide, dog-collared, pulpit owning clergy say they don't believe a single word of the bible is historical fact but as a personal code of behaviour they see it as being good enough to follow. If there were a few more like that my opinion would do a u-turn pretty fucking rapid.

But, when the fread led, as any with the word "religion" in the title is almost guaranteed to, to the more popular, abdication of thought, school, I chucked in my 2c. That's the problem with the word "religion" lot of negative connotations.

sue me  :wink:

That would be a nice person to meet, but for me just meet not follow.  If one interprets just the lessons from the bible does he really believe that there is a god in a heaven that created everything? you know what i'm saying?

What it seems to me is a whole bunch of people here need a barstooll....


...in the form of a pi.

Quote from: Kai on March 15, 2009, 03:46:50 AM
What it seems to me is a whole bunch of people here need a barstooll....


...in the form of a pi.

THIS.

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

Going back to the beginning of this minor trainwreck (which has been very amusing to watch, btw)

You did realize that LMNO was being satirical, right? And you were going along with it by pretending not to realize that, right?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 13, 2009, 09:13:06 PM
my own personal opinion is that organized religion is that it is a form of marketing... even to a degree that it uses broad vocabulary to form memes that are suppose to fabricate some type of transcendence but in most cases they don't mean anything... which is something I've notice creeping into the so called new-atheists -at least the ones who are organizing in way's other then similar ideas and or thought processes. You see this a lot on some of the more militant youtube comments, which is why I say it has the "feel" of religion, though I don't think it is, or at least yet...

Where I think the main problem rises with religion is in the texts which were made to pass down the stories in where people try to explain life. Many of these explanations are now useless - for example the Earth was most likely created when small, rocky debris was attracted by gravity to larger debris and through accretion created a large planetary object.

Many of the organized religions explanations for things even outside of those which we have scientific explanations for also make make little if any sense
if x=y in one chapter
and y=z in another
then you must assume that x=yz
but here is a quick example from the bible which we are familiar with
if, as it says many times God is all knowing and omnipotent
then God=all knowing
but then when the people of Sodom and Gomorrah started to get interested in butt sex, God clearly says that he's going down to investigate so that he may "know" how bad it gets
sorry I don't have the quotation, but you could check it out, besides it's the crutch of the story, since he sends down two angels to check things out.
then all knowing must = not knowing
so then x can not = y
or y can not = z
it makes no sense
and there are plenty of other examples. We all know them as basically biblical contradictions

These can make sense to many of those who are religious if they see them as only attempts to explain transcendence. Them sure there would always be human error and just like in science just a flowed hypothesis
But if the texts are God's "direct words", or a collection of divine stores, like in the Abrahamic religions, then in order for x to = z you have to basically start making shit up... which is why I think Christians believe a vast majority of stuff that is not in their sacred texts. For example the Rapture appears no where in John's Apocalypse, or in the Essene Apocalypse (which is the book which John takes his apocalypse from, sometimes word for word), or the Book of Daniel (where the Essene's take their apocalypse from) and the idea of the rapture actually contradicts those books. But that idea is the foundation of which fundamentalists base their beliefs upon.
Which brings me to an interesting question, do religious people base their beliefs on the text, on the interpretation of the texts, or the bullshit that one has to make in order for the text to have continuity?

I too find that to be a very interesting question.  Find myself agreeing with most of your perceptions here too, based on my experiences & observations, especially the marketing angle.  I don't think most religious people are even all that familiar with the sacred texts upon which their religions are based.  Not that long ago, when the majority of people were not able to read (before the Protestant Reformation, the invention of the printing press & other such wonders) this was a bit more understandable.  At that point, people more or less had to go with the interpretations their religious leaders fed to them.  Nowadays tho, I think the idea of organized religion is similar to a marketing scheme or a special interest group lobbying for whatever benefits they can seemingly derive from belonging to said group. 

Personally, I'm a tad baffled by the more glaring bullshit spouted by fundies of all flavors.  & so on.  ("If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.") 

What are some of the reasons we nearly hairless monkeys apparently still need a concept like organized religion to get our acts together?  From my recent foray into various ideologies, what do you think about these: death anxiety, intolerance of ambiguity, lack of openness to experience, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, need for personal structure, & threat of loss of position or self-esteem?  Curiosity & the desire to know more or to understand better are also high on my list, as is the idea of providing solutions to troubling problems.  What do you think? 

1) Biologically I think we're in a little bit of limbo. We still have emotional reactions to things that no longer have any significance, and we have a need to visualize something to fill the gap.
Best way to describe this is an example. When I was a child my little sister used to be scared of a monster under her bed. I used to have go to her room if I heard her cry and look under the bed to make sure there was no monster. If you think of it in a biological sense she was visualizing something that wasn't there to reinforce a fear of something hiding in the places where she could not see. A perfectly exceptional fear through much of our species evolution. Now I think it's very hard to judge peoples motives, cause the world we live in is so drastically different from the one where our perception has evolved from. It is almost like people look for something to bridge that gap.
Sacred communities tend to fill this gap and it gives communal conformation. But there still is a big difference between sacred communities and dogmatic ones. If you think of it PD.com is kind of a sacred community. We are a community who try to make sense, or just react to what we see around us, but there is no dogmatic unifying idea that holds everyone of us together. Think of how easy it  would be here though if we had a unifying fantasy, such as Barrack Obama has connections to Bin Ladan. It probably isn't true but given enough time we would have a ton of dogmatic talking points that would confirm our original idea, or in my example confirm the monster under the bed. We may be able to question the specific talking points but to question the original idea is to lose your faith and your community
2) I think two things to add would be a desire to quantify good and evil in our fellow human beings, and most importantly the search for identity. For a definition of who you are in relation to everyone else.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 15, 2009, 04:40:10 PM
But there still is a big difference between sacred communities and dogmatic ones.  If you think of it PD.com is kind of a sacred community. We are a community who try to make sense, or just react to what we see around us, but there is no dogmatic unifying idea that holds everyone of us together.

YES!  To the whole but just quoting that 1 part!  It's the dogma that bogs us down I think.  I don't think the worlds of religious thought & the worlds of scientific thought are mutually exclusive.  The dogma & literal thinking get in the way.  Also, if asked to choose, seems to me, the scientific world views are more open to considering the religious world views than visa versa. 

This planet is teeming with all kinds of life.  Seems like it would be intuitive to accept there is diversity of life?  You don't have to wander too far to observe this.  On some level, it seems as if people somehow don't want to consider & find beauty in the variety?  Or is it because there seems to be some sort of root cause in this belief, like there is not enough of whatever? to go around?  Or because people just want to be "right" about things?  I dunno. 

(also completely off-topic but I know this is one of the areas of your expertise.  Can you point me to something good to read on the topic of Continental Drift?)

Visualizing geology by National Geographic - which is more like a textbook so it encompassing a lot of geology, never really going in depth in any of them. But has lots of pretty pictures

Supercontinent by Ted Neil - which is not a science book per say, but a real fun book to read and he goes through the creation of the earth to projected return of Pangaea in 250 million years

I actually could get more which aren't coming to mind from one of my profs when I see him tomorrow

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 15, 2009, 06:02:28 PM
Visualizing geology by National Geographic - which is more like a textbook so it encompassing a lot of geology, never really going in depth in any of them. But has lots of pretty pictures

Supercontinent by Ted Neil - which is not a science book per say, but a real fun book to read and he goes through the creation of the earth to projected return of Pangaea in 250 million years

FUCK!  You mean I have to live CLOSER to people?   :argh!:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:03:18 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 15, 2009, 06:02:28 PM
Visualizing geology by National Geographic - which is more like a textbook so it encompassing a lot of geology, never really going in depth in any of them. But has lots of pretty pictures

Supercontinent by Ted Neil - which is not a science book per say, but a real fun book to read and he goes through the creation of the earth to projected return of Pangaea in 250 million years

FUCK!  You mean I have to live CLOSER to people?   :argh!:

Hey thanks!  I didn't know about the projected return thingie.  Wo Ho that's gonna be FUN!  Good Lord ya think it's fun now?  Just wait until ...    :) :sad:

Quote from: Cainad on March 15, 2009, 01:55:18 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

Going back to the beginning of this minor trainwreck (which has been very amusing to watch, btw)

You did realize that LMNO was being satirical, right? And you were going along with it by pretending not to realize that, right?

Of course I did.

Quote from: Skieth on March 15, 2009, 06:14:57 PM

Quote from: Cainad on March 15, 2009, 01:55:18 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

Going back to the beginning of this minor trainwreck (which has been very amusing to watch, btw)

You did realize that LMNO was being satirical, right? And you were going along with it by pretending not to realize that, right?

Of course I did.

Of course.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 15, 2009, 06:24:32 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 15, 2009, 06:14:57 PM

Quote from: Cainad on March 15, 2009, 01:55:18 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

Going back to the beginning of this minor trainwreck (which has been very amusing to watch, btw)

You did realize that LMNO was being satirical, right? And you were going along with it by pretending not to realize that, right?

Of course I did.

Of course.

Never doubted it.

So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

(http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/my_hair_is_a_bird-257x300.jpg)

Curses!  Foiled again!

:argh!::hi5::lulz:

(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/561/1231803776822.jpg) (http://img24.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1231803776822.jpg)

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 07:39:51 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 06:40:56 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 06:30:49 PM

Quote from: Nigel on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:53:27 PM

Quote from: Urraco el Faus aus Mí Luàn on March 14, 2009, 05:45:31 PM

Quote from: Skieth on March 14, 2009, 05:42:44 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 13, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Kevin: "The 2, naturally, already contains the Hidden One, so when it is written '2+2=4', what the formulation actually means is '1+1=4'.  Which, as you can clearly see, means '(1(+1))+(1(+1)) = 4(+1)'.  But these are complex theological discussions which you shouldn't concern yourself with."



Fuck it, I'm gonna become a numerologist and make some money.

I've never understood this "2+2 can =5" stuff.

If you put two apples on a table, then put two more, you don't magically get another apple.

It's because numbers arn't real; however, the apples are. They work by different rules.

I hold up two fingers, then I hold two more up. I don't magically get another finger.

Fingers are real too. Same as apples. Take a math class.

They work the same way, otherwise you couldn't have word-problems in math and math couldn't be applied to anything in the real world. And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

And you wouldn't be able to say "I have two apples" because to get two you need to add 1 and 1 together.

... is this too hard for you?

What on earth are you talking about? I'm saying if math doesn't apply to the real world than that statement wouldn't be valid.

Keep up with the conversation here.

Math doesn't apply to the real world. That was just a prejudice of Newton.

The real world doesn't function that way, we can only closely model it.

Quote from: LMNO wants to smother smokngoat with a pillow. on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

Um, chopped. Like your apple.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 13, 2009, 05:48:31 AM
1st of all if a model is useful or not has NOTHING to do with anything, and people get into science to know and understand how the natural world around them works.

QuoteSo do you get a chuckle when a scientist draws a conclusion based on their prejudices instead of including the many ways the data obtained could be interpreted?

That's why everything is rigorously peer reviewed. There is no authority that judges work. Your peers have to be able to replicate your methods and experiments. If they can't be replicated your ideas don't become part of the scientific literature except maybe just as ideas to discuss

Um. Congress is peer reviewed too, by whole groups of voters. You can see where that got us.

"Peer review" is only as good as the peerage.

There is something wrong with the scientific method, and what is wrong is US. When we stop realizing that, science fails.

Quote from: Torodung on March 16, 2009, 04:39:55 PM

Quote from: LMNO wants to smother smokngoat with a pillow. on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

Um, chopped. Like your apple.

Lol, I tried it too.
Got nothin'.
Just a bunch of apple slices.
...
nom nom nom

Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

You have 3 groups of 2.

so 12/2/2= 3

:lulz:

VINDICATION, MOTHERFUCKER!   I HAVE THREE APPLES!

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
                  \
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/picard2.jpg)

            NO, U
                  \
(http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/4/4f/Madred,_four_lights.jpg/300px-Madred,_four_lights.jpg)

Quote from: Cramulus on March 18, 2009, 04:30:43 PM
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
                  \
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/picard2.jpg)

            NO, U
                  \
(http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/4/4f/Madred,_four_lights.jpg/300px-Madred,_four_lights.jpg)

lololololol

 :cry:

Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

BANACH-TARSKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox), MOTHERFUCKER.

(srsly, imho one of the best examples showinvg that mathematics is merely a model of reality, or perhaps a completely different beast entirely.)

You'll be pleased to know that made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Quote from: LMNO on March 20, 2009, 07:17:37 PM
You'll be pleased to know that made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Have you never seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?

Perfect sense

I got about half way down the page and noticed faint wisps of smoke coming out my ears. Is this something I should be worried about?  :eek:

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 20, 2009, 06:30:08 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

BANACH-TARSKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox), MOTHERFUCKER.

(srsly, imho one of the best examples showinvg that mathematics is merely a model of reality, or perhaps a completely different beast entirely.)

I wish I understood that! I need moar school.

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 20, 2009, 06:30:08 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

BANACH-TARSKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox), MOTHERFUCKER.

(srsly, imho one of the best examples showinvg that mathematics is merely a model of reality, or perhaps a completely different beast entirely.)

How is that possible O.o

Are they resizing the pieces? Because if they aren't then it should just be two smaller balls...

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 20, 2009, 06:30:08 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 16, 2009, 01:32:15 PM
So, watch this:

If I divide two apples into six segments, I can then recombine them into three new apples.

Therefore, 12/2 = 3.

QED.


WHERE'S YOUR LOGIC NOW, MOTHERFUCKER!?

BANACH-TARSKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_paradox), MOTHERFUCKER.

(srsly, imho one of the best examples showinvg that mathematics is merely a model of reality, or perhaps a completely different beast entirely.)

This is why I stick to mathematics on finite or countably infinite sets.  The set of "real numbers" is anything but.  Seriously, transcendental numbers?  WTF?

Math in general is completely fucked. Games and surreal numbers make me dizzy.

TBH I dont understand it either, at least, not from the wiki article. I do remember some guy telling me an understandable explanation at a party once (astrophysicists throw the best parties ... not really), which made perfect sense (as much as one ball turning into two balls can make), except I was a bit drunk and I forgot how it went. (as far as i know, alcohol doesnt seem to cloud my mathematical understanding, it'll work slower, be unable to grasp bigger things, but it still won't accept incorrect stuff)

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 21, 2009, 12:11:52 PM
alcohol doesnt seem to cloud my mathematical understanding, it'll work slower, be unable to grasp bigger things, but it still won't accept incorrect stuff)

It once made me break into a Church in Middlesborough and steal three bibles and a pew.

Looking back at the wiki article, the problem isn't that mathematics is a poor map of reality, it's that a given branch of mathematics that accepts certain axioms is both the map and territory of a specific kind of set theory.  The theorem as proved has nothing to do with apples and suns, but subsets of three dimensional Euclidean spaces; there is no "cutting up and reassembling," there is taking disjoint subsets of set A and finding that they are identical except for translation and rotation to the same number of subsets in set B.

And in fact you couldn't do this to an actual apple, because an actual apple is discrete - you can't separate a point of apple from the rest of it; you can only do things in molecule-sized chunks.

The "problem" is that (some of) those presenting it claim it to be a model of the reality that we live in and make all these outrageous claims about suns and apples.  Reality isn't set theory - the best mathematics can ever say is "If reality follows all the rules we named 'axioms,' then and only then does our field of mathematics apply to it."

there are also problems with discrete numbers. they're a bit harder to point out, but limiting yourself to discrete molecule-size chunks will not solve all problems between counting in reality and counting in mathematics.

i just pointed to the banach-tarski paradox because it's such a glaring discrepancy between reality and mathematics.

also it doesnt have anything to do with Euclidian spaces, the paradox appears for any set theory in which you accept the Axiom of Choice.

however, rejecting the Axiom of Choice yields other paradoxes incongruent with reality, catching us between a rock and a hard place.

this is really tricksy mathematics, and I dont understand it completely either, but as far as I know, fundamental mathematics is now looking at an entirely different way of "counting stuff" than set theory (at least one of my friends told me so).

the details are irrelevant, just take this home with you: not even mathematics is True.

Of course mathematics is True.  It just isn't Real.

No it's not, mathematical "Truth" (aka Logic) is chuckfull of paradoxes too.

besides, even fundamental logic starts out with posing True as an axiom and defining a negation operator to obtain False.

it's not really based on anything, it's built upon a castle in the sky, defining the existence of Truth as an axiom.

That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

the really good theoretical physicists do too, btw. when i ask them, but really deep down when you look at it, what is it all based on? aand the honest ones will admit "well, nothing really", but they go ahead and research it anyway!! :)

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2009, 07:03:12 PM
but they go ahead and research it anyway!! :)

Its how we invented apple sauce.

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 22, 2009, 07:14:49 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2009, 07:03:12 PM
but they go ahead and research it anyway!! :)

Its how we invented apple sauce.

This is relevant.

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 21, 2009, 08:26:06 PM
defining the existence of Truth as an axiom.

I sense an interesting train of thought in there somewhere.

Quote from: Urraco on March 26, 2009, 03:33:40 AM

Quote from: Aufenthatt on March 22, 2009, 07:14:49 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2009, 07:03:12 PM
but they go ahead and research it anyway!! :)

Its how we invented apple sauce.

This is relevant.

If I remove the perception sarcasm from the above point it captures my meaning.

Quote from: Faithless on March 08, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If a thing is real for you, then that is enough. Don't let others bug you.

Mmmm....You could run into some trouble there.  Any belief outside of...reality leads to...problems.

For instance, take the fellow who believes with all his might that he can fly, and so jumps off his roof.  He of course, cannot fly, and thus faces the consequences of his actions.

Or take that delightfully crazy "Brain in a bottle" bit of philosophical quandry, where, in fact, nothing we know can really be know.  We have to take it on faith.  After all, were all of us colorblind, the one fellow who wasn't would be a madman, Red and Blue would be unknowable to us.  And inconsequential.  Bad analogy.  Goodbye.

PS
I feel that believing there is more to reality that what we percieve is key to any...spiritual religion.  Belief in more than the material.  Because, quite simply, trying to cram the heavens into your head will make it split.  So please, simply be content to slip your head into the Heavens.

What does this fellow  :fnord:  mean?

Fnord

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 15, 2009, 06:02:28 PM
Visualizing geology by National Geographic - which is more like a textbook so it encompassing a lot of geology, never really going in depth in any of them. But has lots of pretty pictures

Supercontinent by Ted Neil - which is not a science book per say, but a real fun book to read and he goes through the creation of the earth to projected return of Pangaea in 250 million years

I actually could get more which aren't coming to mind from one of my profs when I see him tomorrow

Hey & thanks again, I still have yet to take a look at these.  :sad:  & I was sorry to hear you had the flu - hope you're feeling better!

Just wanted to tell you I caught the tail end of this movie The Big Kahuna & it made me think of what you said here.  I don't know how good it is but Kevin Spacey is in it & I tend to like the movies he chooses.  Well, this is the quote:

QuotePhil Cooper: It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.' That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep.

Like this one too:

QuotePhil Cooper: I'm saying you've already done plenty of things to regret, you just don't know what they are. It's when you discover them, when you see the folly in something you've done, and you wish that you had it do over, but you know you can't, because it's too late. So you pick that thing up, and carry it with you to remind you that life goes on, the world will spin without you, you really don't matter in the end. Then you will gain character, because honesty will reach out from inside and tattoo itself across your face.

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 02:59:09 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

Language is a construct. It's communication built around a framework of concept.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 02:59:09 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

It's both.

That's the thing about math, a language that tries to describe this construct as accurately as possible, and the construct is again restricted by what is possible to accurately describe given the language.

Man, this one is incredibly useful:


(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png)

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 02:29:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 02:59:09 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

It's both.

That's the thing about math, a language that tries to describe this construct as accurately as possible, and the construct is again restricted by what is possible to accurately describe given the language.

Bullshit.  If it exists, it can be described by math.

Is a language.

Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 04:35:18 PM
Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

I haven't forgotten a thing, LMNO.  If it can exist in the universe, math can describe it.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 04:35:18 PM
Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

I haven't forgotten a thing, LMNO.  If it can exist in the universe, math can describe it.

Or at least, if it can exist in the universe, math can be used to model some aspects of it.

Quote from: Ratatosk on May 20, 2009, 04:41:41 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 04:35:18 PM
Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

I haven't forgotten a thing, LMNO.  If it can exist in the universe, math can describe it.

Or at least, if it can exist in the universe, math can be used to model some aspects of it.

Math can describe it in it's entirety. 

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 04:35:18 PM
Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

I haven't forgotten a thing, LMNO.  If it can exist in the universe, math can describe it.

Ok, I think I know what you're getting at.  No objections here.

well I'm missing it. How would math describe, hmmmm, Payne's testicles.



would it be a statement like "<2"?

Douglas Adams had the right idea.


"Are you sure you know what the question is?"
-Deep Thought.

Also,

Quote from: Cramulus on May 20, 2009, 07:02:27 PM
would it be a statement like "<2"?

:lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:44:13 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on May 20, 2009, 04:41:41 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:39:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 04:35:18 PM
Almost.  Don't forget about Gödel.

I haven't forgotten a thing, LMNO.  If it can exist in the universe, math can describe it.

Or at least, if it can exist in the universe, math can be used to model some aspects of it.

Math can describe it in it's entirety. 

Math can describe your Mom in her entirety.

But I defy you to show me the mathematical formula that describes TGRR's Hate.  :wink:

∞+1

Quote from: LMNO on May 20, 2009, 07:17:34 PM
∞+1

I stand corrected. :cry:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:29:21 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 02:29:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 02:59:09 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

It's both.

That's the thing about math, a language that tries to describe this construct as accurately as possible, and the construct is again restricted by what is possible to accurately describe given the language.

Bullshit.  If it exists, it can be described by math.

Is a language.

But never entirely accurately. When math tries to describe things that exist, it always fails at a certain point. Sometimes this point is far away enough that it doesn't matter for a particular (but not every) practical purpose. This is why math is generally considered "useful".

However, in addition to things that exist, math is also able to describe things that do not exist. Very consistently, even.

Therefore, the language of math describes not reality, but something that is in certain places nearly homologous to reality, and in other places something entirely different. So yes, I consider math to be a construct.

It starts with the axioms. In logic, they define True and False as axioms, define operators on it, and work from there. That's useful in a lot of cases, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty details, it doesn't work in reality and it leaves you only to conclude that, since the reasoning is solid, the axioms must not really exist in reality, at least not in the hard True/False dichotomy as describes by mathematical logic.

In the math of natural numbers, they start with defining zero and the successor function, yielding all the natural numbers. From there you can derive fractions, rational numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers and a whole lot of things. It doesnt take very long before you start running into trouble that simply doesn't correspond to reality anymore.

One of these troubles is called the Axiom of Choice. It's real simple, it states that you can always take an element from a non-empty set. Somehow this property doesnt follow from the other axioms, which is why they have to assume it. But if you do, you run into paradoxes. However, if you don't you run into paradoxes as well.

Basically I would like to sum it up with a quote from Einstein:

"where mathematics is exact, it does not describe reality.
and where mathematics describes reality, it is not exact."

the first line refers to theoretical mathematics (a language to describe a construct), and the second refers to physics (a language to describe reailty).

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 09:42:16 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 04:29:21 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 02:29:58 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 02:59:09 AM

Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
That's actually one of the things I really like about math... mathematicians acknowledge it as a construct that attempts to remain consistent within its logical framework. Adherents of most other constructs refuse to acknowledge themselves as such. Philosophers, for example.

Math isn't a construct, it's a language.

It's both.

That's the thing about math, a language that tries to describe this construct as accurately as possible, and the construct is again restricted by what is possible to accurately describe given the language.

Bullshit.  If it exists, it can be described by math.

Is a language.

But never entirely accurately. When math tries to describe things that exist, it always fails at a certain point. Sometimes this point is far away enough that it doesn't matter for a particular (but not every) practical purpose. This is why math is generally considered "useful".

However, in addition to things that exist, math is also able to describe things that do not exist. Very consistently, even.

Therefore, the language of math describes not reality, but something that is in certain places nearly homologous to reality, and in other places something entirely different. So yes, I consider math to be a construct.

It starts with the axioms. In logic, they define True and False as axioms, define operators on it, and work from there. That's useful in a lot of cases, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty details, it doesn't work in reality and it leaves you only to conclude that, since the reasoning is solid, the axioms must not really exist in reality, at least not in the hard True/False dichotomy as describes by mathematical logic.

In the math of natural numbers, they start with defining zero and the successor function, yielding all the natural numbers. From there you can derive fractions, rational numbers, irrational numbers, complex numbers and a whole lot of things. It doesnt take very long before you start running into trouble that simply doesn't correspond to reality anymore.

One of these troubles is called the Axiom of Choice. It's real simple, it states that you can always take an element from a non-empty set. Somehow this property doesnt follow from the other axioms, which is why they have to assume it. But if you do, you run into paradoxes. However, if you don't you run into paradoxes as well.

Basically I would like to sum it up with a quote from Einstein:

"where mathematics is exact, it does not describe reality.
and where mathematics describes reality, it is not exact."

the first line refers to theoretical mathematics (a language to describe a construct), and the second refers to physics (a language to describe reailty).

:mittens:

Yeah, I knew you'd love that. But I don't believe it is so because it happens to jive with model-agnosticism, model-agnosticism happens to jive with me because (among other reasons), this ;-)


Oh and for accuracy, I quoted the Einstein thing from memory, so it might have been worded differently (hell he might have spoken it in German for all I know), but this is the gist of it.

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 09:57:33 PM
Yeah, I knew you'd love that. But I don't believe it is so because it happens to jive with model-agnosticism, model-agnosticism happens to jive with me because (among other reasons), this ;-)


Oh and for accuracy, I quoted the Einstein thing from memory, so it might have been worded differently (hell he might have spoken it in German for all I know), but this is the gist of it.

I loved Hofstadter before RAW  ;-)

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 09:42:16 PM

But never entirely accurately. When math tries to describe things that exist, it always fails at a certain point.

Name a language that doesn't.

I'm confused. Are you saying that math is a language like english?

It's obviously not a natural language (that is, the type of languages that humans naturally generate), but the man has a point. Like natural languages, it can describe things that exist, to a degree, and things that don't exist, to a degree. Like natural languages it encounters difficulty in fully describing the nature of reality. (Which does not mean the difficulty is insurmountable.)
Still, these similiraties do not imply that it is a system of natural language.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 21, 2009, 12:40:51 AM

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2009, 09:42:16 PM

But never entirely accurately. When math tries to describe things that exist, it always fails at a certain point.

Name a language that doesn't.

I'm not saying math is not a language, I'm saying that what it describes is a construct. which is what I meant when I said it is both.

that's different from other languages, in the sense that they are made (grown) to describe reality, also fictional realities, so let's say they (attempt to) describe the whole of human experience.

mathematics is quite different from that. it describes both much more and much less than the human experience, in so far, that I think it is fair to say it doesn't describe it at all. Take the Mandelbrot fractal, sure you can plot it using a computer and view any part of it you like, but it has infinite detail and variation, the totality of which is beyond human experience. But it is all described by math. It's also got a zillion interesting properties, and different ways of looking at it (the "buddha brot" for instance), showing that it is much more than just an image on a screen, but it all follows from math.

See it's kind of like this taoism thing, "the road you talk about is not the road you walk upon"? (I know you dont like Taoism, I dont relate much to it either, but this bit is useful). Regular human language cannot describe things completely. When you describe your computer, you cannot describe all the electrons that flow through it (among other countless things), but when mathematics describes the Mandelbrot set as "Z^2+C" it really says it all, a complete representation of the infinite complexity of this mathematical object.

That's how it's different IMO.

Btw, when you said it's not a construct, what did you mean by construct? Cause maybe we have definitions mixed up.

Being the linguistic devil's advocate here, one could argue that math is similar to a natural-language jargon: it describes a narrow area in great depth, is unintelligible to the uninitiated, and mostly useless when describing something outside of its field. Of course, jargons always build upon a natural language and work like natural languages, whereas mathematics is independent of natural language.

I'd like to make a comment here but I'm a little pissed off atm (& embarassed to call myself American & too fukkin' embarassed to use the emoticons) but I do like what's been said here.  I was tracked into taking 3 years of math in 2 years so I could whiz thru & take calculus in high school.  I did that & then took it again in college.  Looking back, I don't understand the rush?  Personally, I think it would have been better for me to wait & take it when I was a little older & my mind was a little more seasoned.  I would've enjoyed it more.  Aside from that, being able to define randomness mathematically might be nice, but what do I know 'bout these things?  How would I know?  I think all languages are nice.

Quote from: Cramulus on May 21, 2009, 02:24:13 AM
I'm confused. Are you saying that math is a language like english?

Yes, if what you are discussing is how the universe works*.





* May not apply in Washington, Ottawa, or London

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 21, 2009, 08:09:58 AM


See it's kind of like this taoism thing, "the road you talk about is not the road you walk upon"? (I know you dont like Taoism, I dont relate much to it either, but this bit is useful).

Listen, Mister...I don't know how you do things on that side of the pond, but here in America we keep our Eastern mysticism OUT of our mathematics.

And by "construct", I mean an artificial model.  Math is not an artificial model any more than any language is, it's a means of describing a model, artificial or otherwise. 

Quote from: Honey on May 22, 2009, 02:48:36 AM
I'd like to make a comment here but I'm a little pissed off atm (& embarassed to call myself American & too fukkin' embarassed to use the emoticons) but I do like what's been said here.  I was tracked into taking 3 years of math in 2 years so I could whiz thru & take calculus in high school.  I did that & then took it again in college.  Looking back, I don't understand the rush?  Personally, I think it would have been better for me to wait & take it when I was a little older & my mind was a little more seasoned.  I would've enjoyed it more.  Aside from that, being able to define randomness mathematically might be nice, but what do I know 'bout these things?  How would I know?  I think all languages are nice.

Since the 80s, parents think their children are failures if they aren't cracking tensor calculus in 5th grade, playing violin at Juliard by 13 years old, and breaking 2 olympic records by 17.

So they push their kids too fast, and when the kid stumbles, the parents give up entirely, and the kid spends the rest of his life in front of an X-box.

I also got tracked in English & Science too but didn't encounter as much trouble there (needing more time for my mind to catch up with the concepts).  Y'got tracked there too by taking standardized tests but in my experience it was more like you were in class with people who were NOT tl;dr.  Now isn't THAT just simply amazing?       

Took the English & Science classes again in college too.  Of course, they delved deeper.  & of course there were even less tl;dr people.  & some things just plainly defy reason!

I traveled as much as I possibly could with my son.  At one point, when he learned there was such a thing as being home-schooled, he asked me about it.  He said he learned more from traveling to other places, going to museums, observing nature in the wild & walking around Manhattan etc. than he did in school.  I tried my best to explain THAT one to him.   

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 22, 2009, 03:33:15 AM

Quote from: Triple Zero on May 21, 2009, 08:09:58 AM


See it's kind of like this taoism thing, "the road you talk about is not the road you walk upon"? (I know you dont like Taoism, I dont relate much to it either, but this bit is useful).

Listen, Mister...I don't know how you do things on that side of the pond, but here in America we keep our Eastern mysticism OUT of our mathematics.

And by "construct", I mean an artificial model.  Math is not an artificial model any more than any language is, it's a means of describing a model, artificial or otherwise.  

You are using a different definition of "construct" from what I'm using. Calling language a construct using the definition you're using would be authentically stupid. Language is not necessarily an artificial (depending on how you define artificial) or abstract model so it's not a construct using your definition, yet it is a human product of history and circumstance, so under the definition I'm using, it is a construct.

Therefore, I am declaring this avenue of argument stupid and not worth wasting any more of our time on.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on March 08, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I can't get around the problem of religion just being a mind-bendingly stupid concept.

on the other hand, I get the feeling that alot of people here are using the word "religion" when what they mean is "grid that I sometimes impose because I enjoy it and find it occasionally useful in my pursuit of higher understanding of the universe and human nature but which I realize deep-down is nothing more than a grid".

I mean, if it's a religion, that means that you literally believe in divine supernatural entities.

I think one of the funniest parts about Discordja as religion is that it provides one with all the basic tools necessary to ditch that meme set and construct their own/modify another/ et cetera...but a lot of people end up lifting that meme-set onto a pedestal, stunting the growth of both parietal and occipital lobes.

oh, and ECH- Buddhism. Has. No. Gods.  i mean- they have something, to be fair, which has to be assumed with no impirical evidence to support it, sure. But gods, spirits, demons, etc... are considered mental products more or less in that religion. Or Taoism. Or certain traditions in Hinduism.

IOW- i think religion is less ridgidly defined than you make it seem.

However, doesn't Buddhism have Ghosts and Demons and an afterlife?

I would tend to put that in the "supernatural entity" category.

Afterlife, yes. Ghosts and demons, depends on the flavor of Buddhism, I guess.

i'm sure you know that depends on the branch of buddhism you cling to.

i'm gonna throw this out there:

religion(s) is/are emotional in nature, even if their mode of propagation is intellectual.

a "religious experience", for example, is not had intellectually IMO. you may describe it with intellectual aparratus, you may learn from it intellectually- but the core of the experience itself is emotional, so different cognitive patterns are used to interpret this experience.

you feel it, in short.

the problem with intellectualizing it for propagation (again, IMO) is that communicating the experience taints the means by which someone else will experience it, i.e. sabotaging a psychological experiement with expectation, either on the side of the experiementer, or the subject, or both. So if i describe my emotional experience to you in christian terms, and you've never had something along those lines in any intellectualized system of belief, should you have that sort experience at any point, you chances of using my described framework are much higher than otherwise.

The Teachings of the Buddha, describing the illumination of the Buddha, essentially point out that all of the intellectualized concepts of gods, et al, do not exist except in the mind. Hell, et cetera, was a later creation, IIRC.

however, we all know how unprepared, unevolved followers treat such things. Is it any surprise that 90%+ of modern Christianity is paganism dressed in new(ish) mythology? but what were the teachings before the herd got on the scene?

in short, i have religion, too.

but you'll never know what it is, because i refuse to describe it to you. it's my own, and you can't have it!