My experience at RaptureReady

[Flaherty]

I have been participating in several threads on the Rapture Ready BB this week and I have compiled some observations to share. Under the name Fleetwood the three main threads in which I have contributed are two on church/state issues,

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123972
http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123984

and one on the Mars face and other Martian stufff:

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=123679

Now my observations.

1. They are not as ban-happy as others here have reported. My signature is the Jefferson quotation, "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear."

2. Both groups exhibit some paranoia. They are paranoid about secularists taking away their religious freedom and we are paranoid of an anti-science theocracy. RR is also paranoid about Satanic plots around every corner.

3. They are highly superstitous. For example, unless as a nation we do what their invisible sky god demands, terrible things will happen to us.

A good example of #2 and #3 combined is the Mars face. Many believe this is probably something real, but is not an ancient Martian civilization. Instead, it is a Satanic deception with connections to end-times events. They also believe NASA and the government conspire to conceal this information from the public.

4. Some of the RR posters are closet fascists. They actually desire a Christian theocracy. They do not see the inherent unfairness of allowing Christian symbols on public property but denying other religious groups the same right. My impression is that they view non-Christians as second-class citizens.

[sparklecat]

Ah, was that you? Nice job on the Mars thread btw. :)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Flaherty
2. Both groups exhibit some paranoia. They are paranoid about secularists taking away their religious freedom and we are paranoid of an anti-science theocracy.

I don't think that people here are paranoid about theocracy. Speaking for myself, I just don't want my tax money going to orthodox priests' salaries and I also demand a state with real religious tolerance. Does this make me paranoid ?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by El Greco


I don't think that people here are paranoid about theocracy. Speaking for myself, I just don't want my tax money going to orthodox priests' salaries and I also demand a state with real religious tolerance. Does this make me paranoid ?

I'll admit it, I am paranoid about a theocracy. Not in the sense that I think anyone in my government is actively trying to create one, at least not at this time. But I am paranoid in the sense that I see it a real possibility in the future if those of us who are not religious maintain a certain mount of vigilance against it. It's a sort of 'preventive paranoia' if you will.

[Keneke]

Are you sure it is wise to reveal your RR name here? Is has been said that perhaps they lurk on these boards.

[Keziah Mason]

Good job Flaherty. I like your comments about the silliness of the claim that NASA is faking the photos. Finding something like that for real would instantly solve all budget woes!

Something to add to the list of observations about RR:

What is up with their signatures? Do they have a Longest Signature competition or something? And all those animated gifs hurt my head.

[c4ts]

Billiefan frequents these boards, but I don't think they ban you just for being a JREF member. After all, they haven't banned him.

[Ralph]

That is a very strange place over there...................You did well...............it can't be easy debating things with people who's answer to anything & everything can be found by quoting "the scriptures"...............

Does anybody else see the humor in someone named "Dorko".............claiming " Einstein was wrong".............

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm currently deeply involved in ChristianForums.com.

Some of it reminds me of my bad old days trolling Yahoo clubs.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm currently deeply involved in ChristianForums.com.

Why ? I mean, really, why ? Is it any fun ? Is there any chance of planting the seeds of doubt ? Don't you get tired of it ?

[Flaherty]

It is interesting to compare the level of credulity at different message boards. I participate on 3 message boards: the JREF, RR, and The Bucket*.

The JREF and RR occupy the extremes of the credulity scale, while the Bucket is somewhere in the middle. Consider the following issues discussed on each board over the last year: the moon landing hoax, Bible Codes, creationism, the recent Hampton Ghost, spoon bending, and the Full Moon hypothesis of human behavior. None of these ideas have any good evidence to support them. As expected, almost no one at the JREF board buys them, few people buy them at the Bucket (most don't give a rip -- just like most Americans), and almost everyone buys them at RR.** I guess we should not be surprised that the same mindset that accepts a deeply religious fundamentalist worldview also will accept claptrap.

Also interesting is the things that are not believed. Each board discusses from time to time topics such as evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. All of these have an abundance of good evidence to support them. Almost everyone at the JFEF accepts them, most at the Bucket do (again, most don't give a rip -- just like most Americans), and almost no one at RR buys them.** Their rejection of evolution is not surprising. However, I'm a little surprised they also generally don't accept relativity or QM since they have no obvious implications for a Biblical fundamentalist worldview. My guess is that RR participants probably do not trust anything science has to offer since it offers them evolution, which they clearly must reject. "If scientists are so dumb or immoral as to think evolution is true, then we can't trust them on anything," RR folks might reason.

I should have been a psychiatrist; the human mind fascinates me more and more. Religious extremists clearly switch off their critical thinking skills for religion, but why do they also do so for everything else? Also, why do the moderately religious not switch off those skills for non-religious ideas?


* The Bucket is a satellite to a board devoted to Florida State University athletics. The Bucket itself is dedicated to non-sports topics and has a good cross-section of views on almost everything.

** To be fair, there are some RR believer-participants who were quick to dismiss the moon hoax theory and to defend relativity.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by El Greco


Why ? I mean, really, why ? Is it any fun ? Is there any chance of planting the seeds of doubt ? Don't you get tired of it ?

It's like staring at a car wreck.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Flaherty
...Bible Codes... almost everyone buys them at RR.

Not that one at least :)

[Bjorn]

How can you manage to continue the discussion with some of those guys?

After pointing out that the same kind of codes, 'predicting' just as famous events, seem to be found in Moby Dick (and with no one claiming this to be false) one of them still comments:

Nevertheless, folks are not "gullible" for wanting to learn more about this phenomenon of scripture. ... or this phenomenon of Moby Dick? :p

Stamina must be what you're eating for breakfast ...

[Ralph]

"Fleetwood's" taking some serious heat over there for equating God with gravy.

I don't think they liked the idea of you doubting the claim that God has been protecting us from terrorist attacks since 9/11.

If that's the case----why the hell did he let that happen in the first place. Were we not deserving of his protection prior to 9/11?
Did something happen post 9/11 that made us more worthy of protection he refused to give us before?

I'm dying to see how they answer that question...........

[Joshua's Gen]

Originally posted by Keneke
Are you sure it is wise to reveal your RR name here? Is has been said that perhaps they lurk on these boards.

Boo ;)

[Christian]

I was under the impression that atheists (skeptics) got the same kind of treatment in those boards as I did here.

I don't see that at all. Why is it that people in this board are most intolerant and dogmatic here? Anything that goes against their paradigms of reality is struck down as ignorance and stupidity. (I'm sorry for the generalization but I do agree with this. And it has been my experience here:

Posted by hal bidlack

Folks,

I again ask that we try to be more civil. Recently I have noticed a trend toward more aggressive postings, with more edge and bite. I wonder if this is helpful?

Specifically, I am bothered by the response to several recent new members, for whom paranormal beliefs seem reasonable. When they posted initial cautious posts, they were slapped down fairly hard, and called quite a few names.

My question is: If the community here believe their are closer to the truth and have a superior understanding of reality, why the nastiness, why the hate?

It has been my experience that the most wise and enlightened people are the most generous to those less fortunate.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Christian
I was under the impression that atheists (skeptics) got the same kind of treatment in those boards as I did here.

I don't see that at all. Why is it that people in this board are most intolerant and dogmatic here? Anything that goes against their paradigms of reality is struck down as ignorance and stupidity. (I'm sorry for the generalization but I do agree with this. And it has been my experience here:



My question is: If the community here believe their are closer to the truth and have a superior understanding of reality, why the nastiness, why the hate?

It has been my experience that the most wise and enlightened people are the most generous to those less fortunate.

I can't speak for others but I'll comment on my own post which I admit was sarcastic.

I've never been very religious but I find as I get older---I tend to believe less in the existence of God. I wouldn't claim to be 100% certain of this----but 99% is about right.

I consider myself open minded and if were to see evidence of Gods existance----I'm sure I'd change my feeling very fast. As of yet though----I've never seen that evidence.

I know my comment was sarcastic but that's exactly the kind of thing that makes me doubt the existence of God. This concept of a God who allows innocents to suffer because of some lack of what amounts to nothing but mumbo-jumbo for example. At the same time though---he'll help out "believers" with minor,trivial matters.

There was a column in my local newspaper the other day. A woman claiming devine intervention exists because after a recent snowstorm, some stranger helped her shovel out her car.

Now I'll admit--shoveling a car out of a snow bank is not fun-----but I'm sure during that same time period---somewhere else in the world some pretty horrible things were happening. A cell in come childs body was mutating into a malignant neoplasm.. A family is burned to death in a fire------thousands get buried in an earthquake.

Don't even get me started on athletes who claim "God was on my side today"........

I guess I think things like this are pretty ridiculous--along with a lot of other things that organized religions teach. I suppose I'll use things like sarcasm to express my disbelief in those things.
I'm sorry but if you read the "fundies say the darndest things" post".......you can't fault someone for finding humor in things like that.

There's no hate intended though. If people find a belief in God helps them get thru life---I have no problem with that as long as they don't inflict their values on me.

Most people were reasonably polite to the skeptic over there-----but a few certainly seemed to be directing a little of that hate & nastiness you mentioned at him .....

[espritch]

I don't see that at all. Why is it that people in this board are most intolerant and dogmatic here?

The definition of intolerance and dogmatism are often a matter of opinion. I find that a lot of Christians and other believers tend to interpret disagreement with their views as a personal attack since they tend to invest themselves emotionally in their beliefs. Skeptics are also sometimes guilty of this. However, I suspect that the number of truly dogmatic or intolerant posters here is small compared to the total number of posters.

That being said, skeptics like to argue and challenge claims and statements (it’s kind of what we do). People here are not shy about voicing their opinion or their disagreement with other poster’s opinions. Disagreement is not the same thing as intolerance. You can express pretty much any opinion you like here without fear of being banned (within reason). However, if you post here, you should be prepared to defend your views.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Christian
I was under the impression that atheists (skeptics) got the same kind of treatment in those boards as I did here.

I don't see that at all. Why is it that people in this board are most intolerant and dogmatic here? Anything that goes against their paradigms of reality is struck down as ignorance and stupidity. (I'm sorry for the generalization but I do agree with this. And it has been my experience here:



My question is: If the community here believe their are closer to the truth and have a superior understanding of reality, why the nastiness, why the hate?

It has been my experience that the most wise and enlightened people are the most generous to those less fortunate.

I don't go to the christian boards, myself, so I can't tell you what kind of experience I would have had there. I can say this, as far as my apparent hatred towards christian:

First, I don't hate them. I do hate fundamentalists, but not christians. I hate fundamentalists because of the way these "enlightened and wise people" treat others.

For example:

Bush senior once remarked that he didn't think atheists could be considered American citizens because it's "one nation under god".

Homosexuals have to fight tooth and nail to get equal (not special...

EQUAL) rights because it says homosexuality is an abomination in the bible.

Two words: Fred Phelps (I've met more people who believe everything the man says than I would care to admit)


Essentially, it boils down to this: If you are a christian and adhere to the faith thereof; great. It doesn't bother me, as long as you understand it is you business, not mine or anyone else's. If, however, you ry to force your faith on me, or anyone else, then you and I have a problem.

As for my questioning the religion of christianity, well, I question all religions and all beliefs in anything. I do this because I am genuinely interested in the answers, not to try and convert anyone.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Christian
My question is: If the community here believe their are closer to the truth and have a superior understanding of reality, why the nastiness, why the hate?
I believe that question cant likely be asked (or answered) without first passing through the bias filter.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Flaherty


Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear.Nice! ;)

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nice! ;)

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but the validity of science and the validity of religion are in absolutely no way comparable.

Everything in science is consistent, testable (with exception to things such as String Theory), and overall demonstratably true.

And again, science has not ruled out the existence of a deity (or gnomes for that matter).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I'm sorry to tell you this, but the validity of science and the validity of religion are in absolutely no way comparable.Sure they are, they both came from the same place. Or, are you suggesting the human race is about to offshoot into two seperate species? ... those with "scientific" bindings and those with "religious" bindings.


Everything in science is consistent, testable (with exception to things such as String Theory), and overall demonstratably true."Sterile" might be a better way of putting it. By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?" Hmm ... Perhaps this is what the Bible means when it says, "Of their fruits ye shall know them ..." ;)


And again, science has not ruled out the existence of a deity (or gnomes for that matter). What is science, if not the by-product of human agency?

While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability. Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Joshua's Gen


Boo ;)

Precisely.

edit: care to participate in a few debates?

[espritch]

By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?"

Why no, I didn't know that. And apparently, neither did Daniel Webster. "Testable" is a derivation of "test". According to my Webster's Dictionary, “test” is a Middle English word meaning “a vessel in which meals were assayed”. This was derived from the Latin word “testum” meaning “earthen vessel”.

So just where exactly did you get your derivation?

P.S. According my dictionary, the word "testify" is from the latin "testis" which means both "to witness" and refers to the the male reproductive gland. Does that mean that when the bible says to "witness unto all nations" it is actually saying "screw the world"?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability. Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.

Sorry, but science is accountable to itself. The scientific method is used to constantly test and retest scientific conclusions. Science is self-correcting. Religion has no such mechanism.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by espritch


Why no, I didn't know that. And apparently, neither did Daniel Webster. "Testable" is a derivation of "test". According to my Webster's Dictionary, “test” is a Middle English word meaning “a vessel in which meals were assayed”. This was derived from the Latin word “testum” meaning “earthen vessel”.

So just where exactly did you get your derivation?

P.S. According my dictionary, the word "testify" is from the latin "testis" which means both "to witness" and refers to the the male reproductive gland. Does that mean that when the bible says to "witness unto all nations" it is actually saying "screw the world"? I just automatically assumed that since "testimony," "testament" and "testify" (these three I did look up) were all derived from "testis," then "test" was related also. But, that was my mistake.

Of course I don't know if we need to make a big production out of it, otherwise I may need to "bear witness" to the fact and put you to "the test." :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Sorry, but science is accountable to itself. The scientific method is used to constantly test and retest scientific conclusions. Science is self-correcting. Religion has no such mechanism. And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion? Are you saying science has no need for ethics?

[Soapy Sam]

Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view. Yeah, wouldn't it be something if we all thought alike. ;)

I'm just here to challenge the "status quo."

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion?

Your proof that ethics derive from religion is...what, exactly?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Just had a look at the RR bb. Interesting how similar in some ways the board is to JREF, particularly how much of the traffic is unrelated to their main "mission". It's a social community for folk of a particular mindset. I don't think I would learn much of interest there though. Nor would I wish to appear as a "Troll", which I probably would in their view.

Three subforums, which are pretty crucial to their "mission", are 'members only', meaning you aren't able to even see them without having registered.

[Soapy Sam]

Ah.
I doubt I will bother to register. If they need to read my opinions they can find them here.(I shan't hold my breath). Having browsed a random selection of threads at RR, I don't think I would find the sight very informative.

There are parallels between the sites though, which is interesting in itself. Given the attitude here to "Trolls"- ie not people who disagree, but ones who do so disagreeably- I think any JREF regular who chooses to post at RR needs to be very , very polite if he is to communicate anything at all. Don't think I have the patience. Kudos to those who have.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sure they are, they both came from the same place.
Logical Fallacy #1: Begging the Question.

The reason why the validity of Religion and the validity of Science are not comparable is due the nature of the two.

Everything in science is demonstratably true and can be empirically verified. No religious beliefs hold up to scrutiny, they are demonstratably false.

That is why "I believe projectiles will fall in a parabolic path" is not equivelant to "I believe there is a god(s) who will take my soul and set it on fire".

Or, are you suggesting the human race is about to offshoot into two seperate species?
Logical Fallacy #2: Strawman. You are deliberately misrepresenting the context of what I had written to make it easier to attack. However, you deserve some credit for creativity.

Logical Fallacy #3: Red Herring. You are introducing material irrelevant to my comments to throw everyone's attention away from the points being made, possibly with hope that a new conclusion will be made.

... those with "scientific" bindings and those with "religious" bindings.
Logical Fallacy #4: Non sequitir. There is no conceiveable way those who admire science and those with religious convictions is logically connected to speciation of the human race.

"Sterile" might be a better way of putting it.
Logical Fallacy #5: Undistributed Middle. You are trying argue that two things are similar, but you fail to specify in what way they are similar.

By the way, did you know that the word "testable" comes from the word "testis?"
Logical Fallacy #6: Red Herring. Introduction of more irrelevant material.

Logical Fallacy #7: Misinformation. The word "testable" does not derive from the word "testis". See above posts for explanation.

Hmm ... Perhaps this is what the Bible means when it says, "Of their fruits ye shall know them ..." ;)
Logical Fallacy #8: Non Sequitir. Your conclusion is in no way logically connected to your previous statement.

Logical Fallacy #9: Begging the Question. Quite a set of questionable premises you got there.

What is science, if not the by-product of human agency?
Logical Fallacy #10: Sweeping Generalization. I've already explained that the validity of Religion and Science are not comparable. Similar origins between two concepts does not suggest the two are comparable.

While I keep hearing from you that science has no accountability.
Logical Fallacy #11: Strawman. You are misreprenting my position to make it easier to attack the misrepresented position, when you knock down the misrepresented position you claim the original position has been demolished. Stop that.

Logical Fallacy #12: Ad hominem. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said nor do I agree with.

Which, in fact is the same argument you pose against those who "subscribe" to religion.
Logical Fallacy #13: Strawman. Misrepresenting my position to make it easier to attack me is a terrible way to make an argument.


13 of 'em, I'd be impressed if I wasnt so irritated...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

The reason why the validity of Religion and the validity of Science are not comparable is due the nature of the two.The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.

In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."

So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.

Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?


1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. -- Revelation 12:1-6So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

[Ralph]

It's always "nice" to hear about children who die----because the parents choose some form of "faith-based" healing over traditional medicine for a sick child.

It's one thing for an adult to make these choices but a child has no say over something that's literally-life or death for him.

What a tragic waste of life when someone dies from something that traditional,science-based, medicine can normally cure.

Going to the doctor & praying is one thing----skipping the doctor in favor of prayer is a criminal act IMO..............

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.

In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."

So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.

Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?

So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.

Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.

They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.

The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion.

[Keneke]

You are assuming that religion and science or opposites on the same coin. It's really not. Religion and atheism are more likely to be opposites, I would wager.

And the whole man vs woman argument reminds me of that little phrase that raised my hackles in one of Randi's commentary, that some woo-woo crap was called "Woman's Science". It was such an insult to women, especially female critical thinkers.

And what does science and religion have to do with men being jealous of women's ability to give birth? The analogy does not hold.

[Ralph]

I have children & I've gone into the delivery room when they were born.

If I'm jealous---it's well hidden in my subconcious mind.

I'm quite content just making the normal contribution to this event without the need to carry a baby around inside me for 9 months.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.


Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?


They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.No, we have that which is external, versus that which is internal.


The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion. Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.


Oh puh-leeze. When and where was this golden age that featured life-embracing Matriarchal religions. You need to be a bit more specific about time and place than "thousands of years ago". 2,000 years ago? 3,000? 10,000?

While you can undoubtedly find a handful of examples of societies that were matriarchal and/or whose religions were headed by female dieties, you would be hard pressed to prove that these societies were any more peaceful (which I take is wht youmean by "life embracing") than contemporary patriarchal societies. You also would be hard pressed to find a time when matriarchal societies were the rule rather than the exception.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keneke

You are assuming that religion and science or opposites on the same coin. It's really not. Religion and atheism are more likely to be opposites, I would wager.Except that Atheists back up their beliefs with science. Are you saying science has no followers?


And the whole man vs woman argument reminds me of that little phrase that raised my hackles in one of Randi's commentary, that some woo-woo crap was called "Woman's Science". It was such an insult to women, especially female critical thinkers.You mean women which have become men?


And what does science and religion have to do with men being jealous of women's ability to give birth? The analogy does not hold. Why? Because as hard as we try to be the "cat's meow," women are better suited for this. Why? Because they "are" the cat's meow. The origin of love -- and sex -- begins with women.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Oh puh-leeze. When and where was this golden age that featured life-embracing Matriarchal religions. You need to be a bit more specific about time and place than "thousands of years ago". 2,000 years ago? 3,000? 10,000? How about early Crete for an example?


While you can undoubtedly find a handful of examples of societies that were matriarchal and/or whose religions were headed by female dieties, you would be hard pressed to prove that these societies were any more peaceful (which I take is wht youmean by "life embracing") than contemporary patriarchal societies. You also would be hard pressed to find a time when matriarchal societies were the rule rather than the exception. Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?

What about the American Indian then? Their religion is based upon worshipping Mother Earth, and it was pretty wide spread.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about early Crete for an example?

Ironically, I was someone just mentioned Crete being Matriarchal on another thread about another subject. And I don't doubt Crete was matriarchal, however as I said, matriarchal societies have historically been the exception rather than the rule


Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?

What about the American Indian then?

American Indians never were a homogeneous group. Some had all manner of societies, some matriarchal, some didn't. Neither were American Indians particularly peaceful. If they had competition for resources, they'd fight, matriarchy or no.

For a good example look at the Iroquois. One could argue that they were Matriarchal but they were as warlike as any other tribe. They sided with the French during the French-Indian war because they wanted allies to wipe out the Algonquins.

[Nyarlathotep]

Since you (Iachus) made an edit since I made my response, I should also point out that American Indians no more had a common religion than they had a common anything else. They did not necessarily worship "Mother Earth".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Since you (Iachus) made an edit since I made my response, I should also point out that American Indians no more had a common religion than they had a common anything else. They did not necessarily worship "Mother Earth". I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.

I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.

I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

I am not an expert on American Indians either (yet), I am working on it though. I am, however, familiar enough with the beliefs and societies of different tribes to be able to say that any sort of blanket statement like "American Indians were matriarchal" is probably not true. I am also familiar enough with history to be pretty certain that the myth of some Matriarchal golden age when peace was the norm is also bunk.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nice! ;)

And now that the tables have turned and this idea has clearly "come of age," perhaps we should begin to question science just as boldly? Especially since it seems, it's become a means by which to "rule out" God.

Its an integral process of science to have all of its findings questioned/verified. Everything in science is already questioned boldly, its through this questioning that sceince advances

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what about this thing called "ethics," which is derived from religion? Are you saying science has no need for ethics?

ethics? derived from religion? Since when? Ethics is derived from humanity, I can point out many non-ethical things that derive from religion that religion claims is ethics, such as treating women as non-humans. I'm certainly not willing to accept the ethics coming out of religion.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The difference between Science and Religion is like the difference between thoughts and emotions (or, left brain versus right brain). And it's totally ludicrous to say that both can't exist at the same time. Indeed you can't have one without the other. Much as you can't have men without women.


Actually, relgion most likely existed before science, and many scientists do not participate in any religion, so you can have one without the other just fine. Also, many branches of science deal with human emotion and expression.


In fact if we don't acknowledge that the "integration" of Science and Religion will make our society whole, then we will continue on in our delusional state, down this neurotic schizoid path, and "the left" will constantly be at odds with "the right."


Relgion is the opiate of the masses, sure its easier to control a population with the right religion, but its still a lie, and people still die needlessly because of religion (holy wars, honor killing, "faith healing", etc).


So you've presented this whole stupid argument because you don't want to accept what it means to be whole. This "is" the problem with Science, in its attempt to "distance" itself from its emotions. Too bad, it's only a one-sided (neurotic) view.


Science does not distance itself from emotions, it attempts to study them along with human expression in great detail. Also, love, human expression, art, human emotion, none of these things require religion to exist. In fact, if anything, religion quashes their creativity to draw the same thing for 1500 years. Some religions even prohibited the drawing of human or animal figures.


Actually when you get right down to it, this whole thing is a man against woman thing. Do you know why? Because women were once considered the origin of life (contrary to what Science may wish to believe) and indeed, the very center of existence. And, I think men may be just a tad jealous when women give birth. I mean men can build all the monuments to themselves that they like, but how does that compare to giving birth, the most precious commodity of all?


Women participate in science with just as much dedication as men do. Does that mean that they are jealous of men, maybe other women? Its silly, you'll have to provide some evidence.


So is anyone aware that Science is the prodigal son of Religion?

Nope, sorry.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.


Are you saying that there have been no Matriarchal religions with an element of fear? Or no Partriarchal religions that embrace life? Are you aware that there are religions that are neither matriarchal or patriachal?


But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?


There is no mystery of the soul. There is the mystery of conciousness and the human brain, which science far from neglects, but actually does study in great detail.


Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

Religous folk love to believe that atheists are just afraid of god. I think I, along with anyone else on the board, can assure you that that is simply not true.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that Atheists back up their beliefs with science. Are you saying science has no followers?


beliefs do not need to be backed up with science, they can be experimentally verified with science.


You mean women which have become men?


I know quite a few women who are engineers that would take *great* offense to that sexist comment. Do you really believe that women have no place in science and engineering?


Why? Because as hard as we try to be the "cat's meow," women are better suited for this. Why? Because they "are" the cat's meow. The origin of love -- and sex -- begins with women.

What is the "cat's meow", why do I want to be the "cat's meow" and why is every woman better suited to being the "cat's meow"?

I know a few men personally that do not require women for love or sex. I however, do not swing this way, but I'm perfectly happy to initiate love or sex (consentual of course) with a woman without her having to supply all the love or all the sex, its 50/50.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about early Crete for an example?


Really, I'm sure its out of the love of their own hearts that they had the most formitable navy of the time. I'm sure it was also out of love that they engaged in bull jumping (jumping over a bull while it is charging at you).


Damn, where the hell is Joseph Campbell when you need him? I remember him posing a pretty plausible argument somewhere?


An argument refered to by a believer as "pretty plausible". Sounds like something that could get ripped to shreds in seconds to me.


What about the American Indian then? Their religion is based upon worshipping Mother Earth, and it was pretty wide spread.

Another group of people amoung who I know many members and such a comment would be insulting to them. There is not a "their religion", they all have their own seperate, unique, and colorfull religions, some worship "mother earth", some do not. War between tribes was not uncommon though.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't claim to be an expert on the American Indian here, however I do base what I know upon things I've seen and heard.


The native americans are a very diverse, socially complex group of people. You can't watch a few movies, hear a few things, and then make sweeping generalizations.


I did have very a unusual experience about American Indians though. It concerns Chief Joseph, chief of the Nez Perce Indians ... if you would care to take a read?

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

I can't believe I actually wasted a few minutes of my life reading that. What the hell is the points of your ramblings, did you actually write all that meaningless crap?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


The native americans are a very diverse, socially complex group of people. You can't watch a few movies, hear a few things, and then make sweeping generalizations.Really?


I can't believe I actually wasted a few minutes of my life reading that. What the hell is the points of your ramblings, did you actually write all that meaningless crap? Now that's the dumbest thing you've said so far. You don't know the first thing about me pal ...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Really?


Yes, really, the native american people are a very diverse and socially complex people and you CANNOT make sweeping generalizations about them.


Now that's the dumbest thing you've said so far. You don't know the first thing about me pal.

No, I don't know much about you, but you pointed me to a page that would supposively explain your view point, but instead, it was a page full of useless ramblings. If you have a point to your ramblings, please state them here. It just looks like to me that you a proving that yes, you are human, and yes, your brain does attempt to make connections all the time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Yes, really, the native american people are a very diverse and socially complex people and you CANNOT make sweeping generalizations about them.This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!


No, I don't know much about you, but you pointed me to a page that would supposively explain your view point, but instead, it was a page full of useless ramblings. If you have a point to your ramblings, please state them here. It just looks like to me that you a proving that yes, you are human, and yes, your brain does attempt to make connections all the time. Like I say, you don't know the first thing about me.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!


Refering to the united states as the 50 states its made up of is not a sweeping generalization. Saying that we all like apple pie is a sweeping generalization.


Like I say, you don't know the first thing about me.

I see you don't bother to refute anything I say. I might add that I do know one concrete thing about you, you are a backwards sexist. (re, thinking that women have no place in science and engineering)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is like saying I can't refer to the United States without referring to each of the 50 states in the same breath. Nonsense!


True, but you couldn't look at the states of Nevada and Arizona, notice that they are mostly desert and then conclude that the United States is mostly desert. It would be inaccurate and it is a much closer analogy to your characterization of American Indians.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Huh? Does that actually make sense to you?

Religion is an outgrowth of human fear. It has nothing to do with science.

Science is a method of looking at the world to determine the truth of how things work. It has nothing to do with religion.

They are not separate parts of one whole. Religious folk would like you to believe they are so they can glom off some of the respectability of science. But nothing in your paragraph above is true.

The only ones under a delusional state are those who choose religion.

I think Jefferson was referring to the close-minded state that accompanies forms of organized religion, something very relevant to RR.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


ethics? derived from religion? Since when? Ethics is derived from humanity, I can point out many non-ethical things that derive from religion that religion claims is ethics, such as treating women as non-humans. I'm certainly not willing to accept the ethics coming out of religion. Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

Much of ethics is genetic, other is tought from generation to generation. Much of this teaching does not revolve around religion, but much does. The ethics that are passed down specifically though religion are highly questionable though, such as the ethics of honor killing, the ethics of torturing people over to your beliefs, etc.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Refering to the united states as the 50 states its made up of is not a sweeping generalization. Saying that we all like apple pie is a sweeping generalization.What I mean is having to refer to each state individually before addressing the United States as a whole.


I see you don't bother to refute anything I say. I might add that I do know one concrete thing about you, you are a backwards sexist. (re, thinking that women have no place in science and engineering) Never said that. Actually in many ways women are more refreshing to work with than men, because they don't have all the ego problems. However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Humanity? What do you mean humanity? Human beings aren't born ethical, they have to be taught. So where do ethics (morals, the difference between right and wrong) come from in the first place?

Humans may not be born ethical, but they are quite capable of figuring things out like "my tribe will survive better if we don't kill each other off." Morality is a tool used by human institutions such as law or civilization to insure survival. Just like any other tool, it had to be invented and refined. This is why morality itself can exceed the limits of your average human being.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by c4ts


I think Jefferson was referring to the close-minded state that accompanies forms of organized religion, something very relevant to RR. Yes, I think you've identified the problem here as "organized religion."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Actually, relgion most likely existed before science, and many scientists do not participate in any religion, so you can have one without the other just fine. Also, many branches of science deal with human emotion and expression.So basically you have two monolithic systems here, both vying for the attention of the masses.


Relgion is the opiate of the masses, sure its easier to control a population with the right religion, but its still a lie, and people still die needlessly because of religion (holy wars, honor killing, "faith healing", etc).This is a generalized statement, and does little to address the purpose of religion. The problem isn't Religion. It's what people do with religion that's the problem.


Science does not distance itself from emotions, it attempts to study them along with human expression in great detail. Also, love, human expression, art, human emotion, none of these things require religion to exist. In fact, if anything, religion quashes their creativity to draw the same thing for 1500 years. Some religions even prohibited the drawing of human or animal figures.How so? Emotions are considered irrational. And that's a no no to science.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Its an integral process of science to have all of its findings questioned/verified. Everything in science is already questioned boldly, its through this questioning that sceince advances You mean like so it could build a better atomic bomb, and destroy masses of innocent people? Or, perhaps develop a more highly toxic compound than anthrax? So where are the ethics in this?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


There is no mystery of the soul. There is the mystery of conciousness and the human brain, which science far from neglects, but actually does study in great detail.This is purely the study of mechanics, not "the spirit" which transcends the mechanics.


Religous folk love to believe that atheists are just afraid of god. I think I, along with anyone else on the board, can assure you that that is simply not true. Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

Some even say they would believe in God, if only it were logical.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What I mean is having to refer to each state individually before addressing the United States as a whole.


ok, well, the 50 states are organized under one flag, one culture. This is not true for native americans.


Never said that. Actually in many ways women are more refreshing to work with than men, because they don't have all the ego problems. However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not.

You said that a woman becomes a man if she is a scientist, and now say that you have a problem with women that "behave" like a man. You sound an awful lot like a sexist to me. What is a "masculine" behavior anyway, itching your crotch?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So basically you have two monolithic systems here, both vying for the attention of the masses.


Neither science nor religion are monolithic. And science does not attempt to gain the attention of the masses.


This is a generalized statement, and does little to address the purpose of religion. The problem isn't Religion. It's what people do with religion that's the problem.


The problem is that when you tell a society to do something based on religion, they won't question. Religion cannot be question and even goes so far as to torture and excecute those that question it. That is wrong, anyone, doesn't matter if they are a priest, or whatever, shold be held accountable by their fellow man.


How so? Emotions are considered irrational. And that's a no no to science.

Since when does science consider emotions irrational?!?! Maybe you are confusing science considering conculusions reached based on emotions as being irrational.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I do have a problem with being "coerced" into accepting a woman who behaves like a man (i.e., real masculine) as something normal, which it's not. Interesting. Who is "coercing" you into "accepting" anyone regardless of how they "behave?"

By the way, would you care to provide your definition of "normal?"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You mean like so it could build a better atomic bomb, and destroy masses of innocent people? Or, perhaps develop a more highly toxic compound than anthrax? So where are the ethics in this?

Lets say one day (completely out of conjecture), a nation of christian fundamentalists wishes to wipe every muslim off the face of the earth. Would it be ethical for muslim nations to use a better atomic bomb to defend themselves with? What if they used a toxic compound to defend themselves?

Ethical and humane advances in science are being made everyday, more than half of us would not be here today (not counting those of us who would not be here because our parents wouldn't be here) if not for the advances of science. Sure one can use knowledge for evil, but knowledge in itself is not evil.

[TruthSeeker]

Just curious, Iacchus, how do you feel about a man who behaves like a woman (i.e. real feminine)? (Maybe he's even a teacher or a nurse!) Is it normal or not?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is purely the study of mechanics, not "the spirit" which transcends the mechanics.


Spirit and soul both derive their meaning from words like breath and wind. Ancient people believed that you breathed in and out your spirit, and when you died, you just didn't breath it back in (expire). We now know that we breath in and out air, so to talk about such things is sillyness. We have no reason to believe that our entire sense of self is produced in the human brain. We have no evidence for anything beyond that nor any reason to believe there is anything beyond that.

Maybe if someone could give a reason other than ancient texts from people who believed your soul was your breath, science would care.


Not the least bit afraid that they might be wrong?

As I've said before, people in the scientific community seek out reasons that would show they are wrong. That's how nobel prizes are won.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


ok, well, the 50 states are organized under one flag, one culture. This is not true for native americans.Do you mean before their tribes were decimated by the United States Government? Besides, haven't they banded together in more recent times, and adopted a more "collective view."



You said that a woman becomes a man if she is a scientist, and now say that you have a problem with women that "behave" like a man. You sound an awful lot like a sexist to me. What is a "masculine" behavior anyway, itching your crotch? I know why I said what I said. It was in response to someone else's baited question. :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Neither science nor religion are monolithic. Sure they are.


And science does not attempt to gain the attention of the masses.Nonetheless the effect is the same.


The problem is that when you tell a society to do something based on religion, they won't question. Religion cannot be question and even goes so far as to torture and excecute those that question it. That is wrong, anyone, doesn't matter if they are a priest, or whatever, shold be held accountable by their fellow man.Tell it to Joseph Stalin, or any other totalitarian dictator.


Since when does science consider emotions irrational?!?! Maybe you are confusing science considering conculusions reached based on emotions as being irrational. Yes, but isn't this what science is all about, drawing conclusions? If so, doesn't it in effect "promote" the general "lack of" emotion? You know, as if it were somehow preferrential? This is what I mean by science taking itself too seriously.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


Spirit and soul both derive their meaning from words like breath and wind. Ancient people believed that you breathed in and out your spirit, and when you died, you just didn't breath it back in (expire). We now know that we breath in and out air, so to talk about such things is sillyness. We have no reason to believe that our entire sense of self is produced in the human brain. We have no evidence for anything beyond that nor any reason to believe there is anything beyond that.Yes "we," the scientific community.


Maybe if someone could give a reason other than ancient texts from people who believed your soul was your breath, science would care.So, would you have me prove that I can talk to spirits?


As I've said before, people in the scientific community seek out reasons that would show they are wrong. That's how nobel prizes are won. Maybe that's the wrong spirit then? :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean before their tribes were decimated by the United States Government? Besides, haven't they banded together in more recent times, and adopted a more "collective view."


at any point in time, and why do you claim that they've adopted a more "collective view"


I know why I said what I said. It was in response to someone else's baited question. :p

You took the bait quite handily. Why do you have a problem with women doing what they want, regardless of whether or not you feel they are "masculine" behaviors.

[Andonyx]

Good Lord, Russ, It's midnight!

Do you live to chase around intellectual miscreants and debate their ill-conceived views?

Well, I guess somebody's got to.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sure they are.


You want to explain to me how either science or religion is monolithic. It seem to me they are both very distributed and diverse.


Nonetheless the effect is the same.


Science gains the interest of the masses because people are interested in it, not because it pushes its beliefs and ethics (like religion).


Tell it to Joseph Stalin, or any other totalitarian dictator.


Joseph stalin did not rule with religion. He ruled with brute force. With religion, you don't need brute force, you can create atrocities simply by speaking.


Yes, but isn't this what science is all about, drawing conclusions? If so, doesn't it in effect "promote" the general "lack of" emotion? You know, as if it were somehow preferrential? This is what I mean by science taking itself too seriously.

So, you think science should include emotion when reaching its conclusions instead of reason? What extra fact or knowledge could be learned by replacing reason with emotion. If reason decides one thing, and emotion decides another, than the desicion based with emotion instead of reason would clearly be wrong.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

So, would you have me prove that I can talk to spirits?


That would be a wonderfull first step. Prove you can talk to spirits, and you'll have my attention. Incidentally, if you can prove to James Randi that you can talk to spirits, you'll be a million dollars richer.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Good Lord, Russ, It's midnight!

Do you live to chase around intellectual miscreants and debate their ill-conceived views?

Well, I guess somebody's got to.

naw, just been sick

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.

But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?

No, we have that which is external, versus that which is internal.

Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

As pointed out above, this utopia you seem to believe in never existed.

Prove there is a soul. You can't. Religion posits the soul, indeed depends on its existence. Science has yet to demonstrate it even exists. Based on the history and success rate of religion and science, my money's on science.

Atheists reconcile themselves to the fact that god might exist. But since there's no evidence for such a conclusion, it's irrational to proceed as if he does exist. What's clear is that most religious folk cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that god might NOT exist.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


That would be a wonderfull first step. Prove you can talk to spirits, and you'll have my attention. Incidentally, if you can prove to James Randi that you can talk to spirits, you'll be a million dollars richer. Well, I'm speaking to you aren't I? :D

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I'm speaking to you aren't I? :D


?????

I'm not understanding this reply

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac


As pointed out above, this utopia you seem to believe in never existed.I refuse to answer this on the grounds that I "may" not know what I'm talking about. :D


Prove there is a soul. You can't. Religion posits the soul, indeed depends on its existence. Science has yet to demonstrate it even exists. Based on the history and success rate of religion and science, my money's on science.Is it up to science to conclude that you have a soul? Or, is it up to you? If it's there, then there should be a way to determine this, because it's yours.


Atheists reconcile themselves to the fact that god might exist. But since there's no evidence for such a conclusion, it's irrational to proceed as if he does exist. What's clear is that most religious folk cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that god might NOT exist. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled



?????

I'm not understanding this reply What was that song by Sting? ... "We are Spirits in the Material World?"

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What what was that song by Sting? ... "We are Spirits in the Material World?"

So you run on the assumption that souls/spirits exist in the first place? And since you think you have a soul, answering Ipecac is the same as the soul answering him? Yeah. Sure. Apply for that million then, if you like.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled


So you run on the assumption that souls/spirits exist in the first place? And since you think you have a soul, answering Ipecac is the same as the soul answering him? Yeah. Sure. Apply for that million then, if you like. Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply? ;)

[Yahweh]

Well I see Russ has already taken the floor and cleaned up house...

A nice way to start the New Year, aint it...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply? ;)
Kwazy analysis:

No souls. No spirits. No auras. No chakras. No phantoms. No ghosts. No duality.

Souls are not real, they are not necessary for existence. And if you trust your experience so much, you can only agree that this is true.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply? ;)

I don't think a phrase like "proof of the pudding is in the eating" is quite sufficeint to prove the existance of a soul. Please elaborate on why you think a soul exists because if you are saying that the fact that we are here is proof of a soul then you are doing nothing more than making a circular argument.

But I would hate to set up and knockdown a strawman so please elaborate...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well I see Russ has already taken the floor and cleaned up house...

A nice way to start the New Year, aint it... He may be better versed in the use of words, but that only proves he's better versed in the use of words. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I don't think a phrase like "proof of the pudding is in the eating" is quite sufficeint to prove the existance of a soul. Please elaborate on why you think a soul exists because if you are saying that the fact that we are here is proof of a soul then you are doing nothing more than making a circular argument.Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable. And if you could understand that, there would be nothing else I need to tell you. ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
He may be better versed in the use of words, but that only proves he's better versed in the use of words. ;)
I cant help it if those words he put together make arguments that trump over yours ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable. And if you could understand that, there would be nothing else I need to tell you. ;)

The word "soul" has certain connotations, at the very least it refers to some non-material part of your being. The existence of such a thing is certainly not self-evident. the mere fact that I exists does not necessarily imply such a thing.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is it up to science to conclude that you have a soul? Or, is it up to you? If it's there, then there should be a way to determine this, because it's yours.

You are correct. If the soul is there, there should be a way to determine this. But there isn't. There never has been. That tends to suggest that it doesn't exist.

The rest of your reply about it being up to me doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll just let it go.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

The word "soul" has certain connotations, at the very least it refers to some non-material part of your being. The existence of such a thing is certainly not self-evident. the mere fact that I exists does not necessarily imply such a thing. Then how would you define your "conscious identity?"


Originally posted by Ipecac

You are correct. If the soul is there, there should be a way to determine this. But there isn't. There never has been. That tends to suggest that it doesn't exist.

The rest of your reply about it being up to me doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll just let it go.Are we speaking for everyone here or what? Thus far we have 2 votes against and 1 vote for. But what about the rest of humanity? Are you saying that what applies to you applies to everyone else? I'm sure there are lots of people in the world that would beg to differ. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, I'm speaking to you aren't I? :D

I am not a spirit, I am a human being. You would first need to prove that I have a spirit.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Is it up to science to conclude that you have a soul? Or, is it up to you? If it's there, then there should be a way to determine this, because it's yours.


If there is a soul, and it has an effect on the real world, then it is provable by science. If there is a soul and it has no effect on the real world, then what does it have to do with reality?


The proof of the pudding is in the eating. :D

No, the proof would be what you present to us.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are we speaking for everyone here or what? Thus far we have 2 votes against and 1 vote for. But what about the rest of humanity? Are you saying that what applies to you applies to everyone else? I'm sure there are lots of people in the world that would beg to differ. ;)
You cannot possibly be asserting that "Truth" is determined by the number of people who agree, are you?

Argument ad Populum is the worst way to make an argument.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

You cannot possibly be asserting that "Truth" is determined by the number of people who agree, are you?

Argument ad Populum is the worst way to make an argument. Of course not! But then how else will we decide? You seem to be asserting one thing and I another?

How do you know whether it's true or not?

[Ipecac]

I don't think Iacchus is really interested in anything but jerking us along here. He's making no real arguments, nor refuting ours.

I'm done playing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I don't think Iacchus is really interested in anything but jerking us along here. He's making no real arguments, nor refuting ours.

I'm done playing. Bye bye. So wrong to you too! ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I am not a spirit, I am a human being. You would first need to prove that I have a spirit. And yet how do you know anything unless you can see it for yourself? Afraid you missed the boat on that one, unless you're ready to drop "science" as an answer.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet how do you know anything unless you can see it yoursef? Afraid you missed the boat on that one, unless you're ready to drop "science" as answer.

I have no evidence for any spirit, just as I don't have evidence for any gardian angel, or any other such thing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


If there is a soul, and it has an effect on the real world, then it is provable by science. If there is a soul and it has no effect on the real world, then what does it have to do with reality?That's dumb, because if your soul is "you," then it does have an effect on reality.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's dumb, because if your soul is "you," then it does have an effect on reality.

Then there is nothing special, spiritual, or mysticall about a soul and its silly to talk about it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course not! But then how else will we decide? You seem to be asserting one thing and I another?

How do you know whether it's true or not?
You are making a Sweeping Generalization. Just because there are mulitple ways to make an assertion does not make them all equally valid.

For instance, I would suggest things which are demonstratably true is most likely a much more valid way to support an assertion than coin flipping.

I do not, however, see "mob mentality" as a valid way of supporting a belief. Is the world flat? Does everything revolve around it? I'll tell you that the world was never flat, nor did the sun revolve around it while so many people were convinced it does.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I don't think Iacchus is really interested in anything but jerking us along here. He's making no real arguments, nor refuting ours.

I'm done playing.
I've got patience and time to kill, I'll hang about for just a bit longer...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


The word "soul" has certain connotations, at the very least it refers to some non-material part of your being. The existence of such a thing is certainly not self-evident. the mere fact that I exists does not necessarily imply such a thing. It's about as self-evident to me as consciousness is, because that's what it is.

Besides, where does your consciousnes go when you dream? Isn't if funny how you're no longer aware of yourself in the material world, but quite often find yourself in this strange world of dreams which, quite often become a reality unto themselves? And then at times it becomes so real, that you can hardly imagine you weren't where you were already supposed to be. And then when you finally do wake up, you go "Wow, what the heck was that all about?"

In fact I've had any number of dreams like this myself, one of which is illustrated on the following page (regarding the Indian tapestry) ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's about as self-evident to me as consciousness is, because that's what it is.
You have successfully decieved yourself.

(Its not that hard is it...)

Besides, where does your consciousnes go when you dream?
Who was it who said "Consciousness is what goes away when you fall asleep"?...

Isn't if funny how you're no longer aware of yourself in the material world, but quite often find yourself in this strange world of dreams which, quite often become a reality unto themselves?
Its a very natural process, its mechanism is well documented and verified...

There is nothing inherenetly "funny" about it.

It is quite impossible for your dreams to become an alternate reality. The reasoning is due to the fact that your sensations cannot alter objective reality.

In fact I've had any number of dreams like this myself, one of which is illustrated on the following page (regarding the Indian tapestry) ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html
Sorry, but dreams are not evidence for a soul/spirit/chakra/aura/shadowperson/dualistic reality.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

You have successfully decieved yourself.

(Its not that hard is it...)Yep, poor little ol' me. Something I'll have to take to the grave with me I suppose? ;)

Could be worse things to happen I guess?


Who was it who said "Consciousness is what goes away when you fall asleep"?...And yet why is it possible to become wide awake in your dreams?


Its a very natural process, its mechanism is well documented and verified...The mechanism may be documented, but not the medium itself. At least not in any of your "scientifc journals."


There is nothing inherenetly "funny" about it."Peculiar" to say the least. ;)


It is quite impossible for your dreams to become an alternate reality. The reasoning is due to the fact that your sensations cannot alter objective reality.I understand it becomes even more real after death.


Sorry, but dreams are not evidence for a soul/spirit/chakra/aura/shadowperson/dualistic reality. Well obviously "evidence" of something.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yep, poor little ol' me. Something I'll have to take to the grave with me I suppose? ;)

Could be worse things to happen I guess?


Ya, we all know that you'd rather take your lies to the grave and never learn any truth. Just realize this, if it turns out that there is no afterlife, you have completely squandared the time you do have, and found zero truth.


And yet why is it possible to become wide awake in your dreams?


Becuse then you wouldn't be dreaming...would you? Once you understand the actual process behind dreaming, its pretty clear.


The mechanism may be documented, but not the medium itself. At least not in any of your "scientifc journals."


Umm....You claim there is a medium. There is no need for one, there is no evidence for one. So why should scientific journals talk about it? Should they make mention of every unsupported idea that anyone comes up with just to satisfy you?


"Peculiar" to say the least. ;)


Not really. Not once you study it in depth


I understand it becomes even more real after death.


I think you need to rephrase that "I lie to myself and say that we enter the dream world after we die because it makes me feel more secure"


Well obviously "evidence" of something.

yup, it sure is, its evidence that we dream. Pretty astounding, isn't it?

[Iacchus]

Yep, nothing is at it appears. Anyone ever hear that phrase? Hmm ... might have been Sherlock Holmes that said that?

Could have been quoted in the movie, The Matrix, too for all I know?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Iacchus, I'm not going to try and convince you, since it would be as pointless as trying to teach an 800 pound gorilla to fly.

Therefore, I'm going to put it simply.

I do not believe in a soul, spirit, ka, chakram (with the exception of the arabian weapon), or any other life essence which cannot be measured.

I do not believe in any kind of god, deity, great wolf spirit, large Norwegian swinging a ball-peen hammer to make thunder, or any other remotely supreme being since these things cannot be measured.

I know about scienc, and while not a scientist, I am aware that any expirment which has gone on to prove something can be repeated and tested. I may even chose to do the testing myself.

And, yes, Sting did sing about being Spirits in the Material World.

While We're at it, Pete Townshend and the Who sang about a young lad in England who, while deaf, dumb and blind, became a champion pinball player and should have been recognized as a new messiah.

I view both as this: very entertaining music which may or may not have been written by people who believe it. And if they do believe it, until it can be proven and measured, it has no bearing.

So, having said all that, I have grown tired of your platitudes and sound bites. I have grown tired of repeating what you have been told by other posters. I will keep reading you posts, but I will no long reply to you until you do the following:

1. Offer proof of a soul or spirit. (Saying it is interchangeable with consciousness is not proof, it is bending a definition.)

2. Offer proof of a deity of some type.

3 Offer scientific proof of an afterlife.

I will ask Russ and Yahweh to be secondary judges to this.

If you provide scientific proof of ANY of these claim, I will personally reward you $1000 of my own money, and I will vouch for you with Mr. Randi for the million dollar prize, as well.

This isn't a bet. I'm looking for nothing in return. Just for actual scientific and measurable evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Iacchus, I'm not going to try and convince you, since it would be as pointless as trying to teach an 800 pound gorilla to fly.

Therefore, I'm going to put it simply.

I do not believe in a soul, spirit, ka, chakram (with the exception of the arabian weapon), or any other life essence which cannot be measured.

I do not believe in any kind of god, deity, great wolf spirit, large Norwegian swinging a ball-peen hammer to make thunder, or any other remotely supreme being since these things cannot be measured.Stuck in the mud again I see huh? Well sorry to say I didn't come here to "agree" with anybody. If you're looking for that perhaps you should try Rapture Ready? ;)


I know about scienc, and while not a scientist, I am aware that any expirment which has gone on to prove something can be repeated and tested. I may even chose to do the testing myself.The only problem here is that we're speaking of something a little more personal, which science has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of handling ...


And, yes, Sting did sing about being Spirits in the Material World.

While We're at it, Pete Townshend and the Who sang about a young lad in England who, while deaf, dumb and blind, became a champion pinball player and should have been recognized as a new messiah.

I view both as this: very entertaining music which may or may not have been written by people who believe it. And if they do believe it, until it can be proven and measured, it has no bearing.I have no problem accepting that Sting believes in what he sings about. In fact I understand he derived most of his (early) material from his dreams.


So, having said all that, I have grown tired of your platitudes and sound bites. I have grown tired of repeating what you have been told by other posters. I will keep reading you posts, but I will no long reply to you until you do the following:I have pretty much given up on you too by the way. ;)


1. Offer proof of a soul or spirit. (Saying it is interchangeable with consciousness is not proof, it is bending a definition.)

2. Offer proof of a deity of some type.

3 Offer scientific proof of an afterlife.

I will ask Russ and Yahweh to be secondary judges to this.

If you provide scientific proof of ANY of these claim, I will personally reward you $1000 of my own money, and I will vouch for you with Mr. Randi for the million dollar prize, as well.

This isn't a bet. I'm looking for nothing in return. Just for actual scientific and measurable evidence. Hey, did anybody ever tell you that science was not infallible? So please don't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, Okay?

All I can say is stick around, the truth may "yet" be forthcoming.