I don't know whether anyone has actually counted them, but Ricky Gervais claimed recently there had been 2800, I think.Helluva lot anyway.Originally Posted by cacian
I don't know whether anyone has actually counted them, but Ricky Gervais claimed recently there had been 2800, I think.Helluva lot anyway.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
really did he? it must have taken him a good few hours to get that conclusion.
2800 sounds more like a year then anything else 2/8/00 LOL
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
How many Gods are there? Well females are 1/2 the population, so about 3.5 billion
As to my username; Daedalus was taken.
female? 3.5 billion haha this is a hefty number.
Daedalus taken? you mean someone else uses it as a username?As to my username; Daedalus was taken.
what is it that you like about Oedipus? I mean there are Greek mythological characters. why these two in particular?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
It is my strong belief that females are divine. Those are the best characters from mythology; Daedalus was in Joyce
females are divine? I am a female and I happen to believe male is divine but that is a long story. I have no religion by the way and I am ino way reiterating the bible in any shape or form for it is littered with men being this and that and top god being a man too. it annoys the hell out of me religions because it is a one way street.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
That much is indisputable. It is clear from examination. A proven fact, if you will. Now:
The Aetor suicide machine, being of such a peculiar make and type and so important to the story of the Aetor reconquest of the Galaxy, next to which the story of the small species of carbon-based, primitive life form Homo sapiens (which is situated, on its small planet "Earth") is unimportant, will be described in detail in a future volume. For clarity and for the benefit of the reader, however, here is a small amount of information with which to imagine the suicide machine when reading about it in the next paragraphs.
The Suicide Machine, an Aetor clockwork device invented in 4269 U.9, is used to provoke simulations of deep depression and melancholy; these sensations, those of an abnormal Aetor, grab the user by the metaphorical hand and make them commit suicide 90% of the time. The other 10% grab their own sexual organs and eat them, the "Sexual Suicide" so popular in the Soldiers Of Lieasjaialsa (The English translation of that word is still being created, however it roughly means this: "the celebration of the removal of various sexual organs and other appendages, which cause great pain, and purifies in its removal of lust (the Aetor, of course, having the sexual desire part of their Thought System in their sexual organs, rather like male humans, do not feel arousal after their removal).)
The Suicide Machine was invented by the great Aetor polymath Hamsun Johansson and was used as a psychology assistant. Subjects would be subjected, tested to prove various theories about depression, hence cured by the Delusion Machine, which made them happy again, and then rewarded for their assistance with a Perpetual Masturbation Machine, the workings of which are far more famous then the Suicide Machine and require no explanation.
That is my metaphor for religion. It's a piece of juvenilia I have adjusted. Now tell me: could this be a real metaphor for life too?
Margaret Atwood is divine, catch her on the latest "Start the Week", Radio 4. Start of new series. My week has a start again!
hi mal4mac what is the show about?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I wonder what does the word "bad" represent here. Is it about the harmful/hurting deeds which people commit when they breach the limits of morality, emotions or that which is deemed offensive against the standard law?Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you will need religion.
If that is the case then not just religious/theists are not the exception but also atheist are also included as the guilty party ( irrespective of them being under any religious institution). Committing sins ( error to some) is second to nature, we cant single out a certain group but, of course it seems this was not meant by the poster.
Going by the flak religion is weathering nowadays, it seems the bad things mentioned by the poster refers to those whose repercussions on the society and globally are on a wider scale. If we go by this statement then there are many people who are not religious but they still do go out and commit heinous crimes.
It only raises some questions. There are some people, who due to some financial constraints in certain conditions committ heinous crimes, parents for example. These doting parents ( many of whom arent even religious), who do not want to fail their family/kids as their guardians, acts against the fundamentals of their religious institution and by doing so in turn destroys the fabric of the society.
Who is to blame for their misconduct? Religion?
If religion takes the blame for a person`s sin, wonder who takes the credit for a bad person`s change of heart? Does it work both ways?
Should not we give credit to religion where its due? Should we be hopeful; that religion wont be percieved through 'Nelson's Eye'?
In some way partly it is true. If we glance back through history we will witness many atrocities committed in the name of religion be it during the ancient/pagan era, the Middle Ages and or in modern times.The catalyst behind all these crimes were the leaders at the helm of their respective religious instituion, but today the world, and to certain extent some devotess, have seen through these corrupt religious leaders.I don't think this is true since (in my opinion) religion itself is not a bad thing. It is only religious institutions that sometimes convince people to do bad things, but I think this is true of any large organization, be it political or religious.
It is a pity though that those fanatical leaders, responsible for provoking/inspiring the most horrendous incidents in the history of religion ( crusades, inquisition, holy war in modern times), are beyond the law of justice. These patriarchs interpreted their noble scriptures according to their own understanding and tempted the illiterate devotees(mostly) into war in search for martyrdom/salvation, consequential in being the loss of innocent lives on both sides. Some have gone on to be elevated to the status of sainthood and some of those in modern are revered in some countries that it is impossible to bring them to justice, even posthumously.
Last edited by Bleeding Pawn; 10-06-2013 at 02:35 PM.
Three guests talking about their work, or some specific topic. Simple format, but they usually have good guests. Today was very good, a general chat about the internet and how some young "cultural entrepreneurs" are making it pay for them. Learn how get yourself onto YouTube, Cacian, and make lots of money. Next week: Greek myth and the Indian epic Ramayana.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr
My other favourite Radio 4 series, "In Our Time", is also back. Last week's episode, on Blaise Pascal, was magnificent:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2v6m
No it was not meant by the poster. A mother who joins a religion which does not believe in certain medical practices and therefore deprives her child from a life saving procedure is not using her own moral compass of goodness to make this decision. Religion sets the standard of what goodness means in order for her to be part of the group meaning to be otherwise, to go against her every instinct, she would be cast out, even be bad for doing so. While others ignore such tenets and are guided by their own set of standards of what is right and what is wrong, she is bound by an imaginary higher power who dictates such things as if she herself is incapable of knowing such things without it.
What an insult and these 'laws' are an atrocity when you realize that religion didn't invent morality but it exploits those who place their lives at its feet.
Before sunlight can shine through a window, the blinds must be raised - American Proverb
I think the right kind of religion gives people a voice. Only fanatics are intolerant.
Ah, but it did. Religion does give people a voice, it is why many turn to it. It may not be the voice that you would choose, but it doesn't negate that it does speak for others.
Even with the backwards position of the church, you still have an entity comprised of monks, nuns, St. Teresa of Avila mystics, priests, students, and regular members who every day, find a deep connection and "voice" with God. Do you deny that such people exist?The kind of thing would be Pope Franky's desire to drive change within the Roman church, based on what people want. If it works, it will be that church's first case of listening to the people in about 1800 years, so it's a nice change.
You would be correct with the only omission being that it is a parasitic thought that piggies back off of what it is not, that is diametrically opposed to actually possessing an independent stand. The Epicurian, stoic, and humanist schools of thought function through proposing their own worldview and what each believes, leads to the best life. The atheist position doesn't have legs of its own from which it can stand.First off, atheism isn't a religion. There are no rules, no membership criteria, no tithing, nothing to worship even. Trying to call it a religion has been tried a few times, has been found to be completely spurious, and pretty outdated in 2013.
Jiddu Krishnamurti maintained that there isn't such a thing as true seeking. Somewhere in the deep recesses of our minds, we have already made up our minds, as to what we will "discover." This applies to theists as well. If anything, this means we must try to have an authentic search as best we can. I'm not sure if such a thing is possible, but I will keep betting my chips on that effort.As to "listening to creation", it may surprise you that scientific atheists are actually extremely good at that. Where do you think they would have heard a god? Do you think the god is there but atheists don't want to look for her/him/it?
Last edited by SFG75; 10-06-2013 at 01:06 PM.
I have to dispute what you're saying on a couple of grounds.
First off, outside of developing nations, how many adults turn to religion? As I see it, people are almost always born into religion, and a few find it as adolescents. The incredibly small number of adults who turn to religion seem to do so because they're trying to cope with some inner turmoil and a god provides a handy scape-goat.
Then, let's look at those people who do turn to religion. What voice does it give them? It gives them comfort, but I can't see it giving a voice.
Maybe you can explain it?
No, I'd only deny that they're talking to anything outside of their own head. Again, even if they're talking to a god, how does that give them a voice? We're not talking about the sound of the god's speaking voice here, but how religion enables people themselves to articulate.
You mention St Terese, well, I'll parlay that with Mother Theresa, whose near death-bed admission that she had finally realised she wasn't talking to god at all should be a good guide to believers.
That is superb!
It's written to look meaningful, but says nothing at all. How can atheism be parasitic? How does one piggy-back on the lack of something? How is atheism not independent? They are just wonderful metaphors, but unfortunately, they are hollow non sequiturs.
Along with the first paragraph of your post, this is making me think that maybe you actually don't have any idea what the discussion is.
Repeat after me: "Atheism is not a doctrine".
Then you may be able to grasp that atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with any other -ism. Atheism includes altruists, humanists, scientific skeptics, rationalists, Wiccans, Buddhists, agnostics, panspermians and David Icke.
Again, you're taking the nonsensical position that atheism has to be positive. Atheism has exactly the same need to be positive as a-philatelism.
That's one. Why would I give a toss what some (presumably) Eastern mystic has to say? The christian bible, supported by billions, suggests that if you seek, you will find. I don't buy that, either.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
