[Shaddim]

Originally posted by entrox:

Since you, MacNStein, resort to name-calling, I shall do the same as Cipher did and plonk you. I won't waste my time with bigots.

I'm too old not to call "a spade a spade". So be it. *shrug* It's duely noted...

(now I have to find the toilet paper I wrote that list on... if I haven't flushed it already.)

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What strikes me as rather disparaging are your comments towards ancient cultures as being "inferior", which they are not.

If you were to be transported back in time, knowing the world you know today, and made to live in ancient Judea, Babylon, Egypt, India etc you'd want to come back pretty soon.

It's easy to fantasize about the past, some people think the 80s were cool (I do!), but you wouldn't want to live under a theocracy with constant warfare surrounding you, little security, constant murder, religion decreed capital punishment by stoning or by sword, people shitting in the streets, bandits roaming outside the villages. Many of the modern liberal spiritual interpretations of religious texts came to be in more modern societies which had more sanitation, educaton and welfare. That's how religion changes. When things are bad and there is little order, religion is strict and lacks the liberal interpretations. When people are safe their imagination wanders and comes up with new ideas, sometimes even incorporating modern scientific discoveries as in your comparison of the sephiroths and quantum physics.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by entrox:
A 'true' Christian is apparently the one who cherry-picks the nice parts out of the bible and forgets about or downplays the rest. You know, stuff about slaying idol-worshippers (Ezekiel 9:5-6), allowing gang-rape (Genesis 19:8), condoning misogyny (Timothy 2:11-14) and so on and so on.

How about human sacrifice in Judges 11?

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and you're too much of a moron to see that a true Christian wouldn't do such a thing.

Well, I guess you won that argument.

Brilliant piece of logic and adult reasoning there.

How can an atheist possibly win against such a towering intellect?

True christians call people morons, do they?

[Scientist]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
If you were to be transported back in time, knowing the world you know today, and made to live in ancient Judea, Babylon, Egypt, India etc you'd want to come back pretty soon.

It's easy to fantasize about the past, some people think the 80s were cool (I do!), but you wouldn't want to live under a theocracy with constant warfare surrounding you, little security, constant murder, religion decreed capital punishment by stoning or by sword, people shitting in the streets, bandits roaming outside the villages. Many of the modern liberal spiritual interpretations of religious texts came to be in more modern societies which had more sanitation, educaton and welfare. That's how religion changes. When things are bad and there is little order, religion is strict and lacks the liberal interpretations. When people are safe their imagination wanders and comes up with new ideas, sometimes even incorporating modern scientific discoveries as in your comparison of the sephiroths and quantum physics.

Ugh. I just wrote a few paragraphs about why I disagree with you...i just deleted it...it deserves more space so I'll explain it a bit later.

[quandarry]

using the bible to prove anything is pure idiocy...it was written by a bunch of grey haired old farts who had more visions then timithy leary on lsd....you know what we do with old men like that now...lock them up and pump them full of thorazine.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
Well, I guess you won that argument.

Brilliant piece of logic and adult reasoning there.

How can an atheist possibly win against such a towering intellect?

True christians call people morons, do they?

A true "Christian" wouldn't. But, since I'm not Christian, I feel free to call things as I see them.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by quandarry:
using the bible to prove anything is pure idiocy...it was written by a bunch of grey haired old farts who had more visions then timithy leary on lsd....you know what we do with old men like that now...lock them up and pump them full of thorazine.

You mean people like Trent Reznor, Maynard Keenan, Roger Waters, etc.?

That's just brilliant!

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by quandarry:
using the bible to prove anything is pure idiocy...it was written by a bunch of grey haired old farts who had more visions then timithy leary on lsd....you know what we do with old men like that now...lock them up and pump them full of thorazine.

Tim Leary was a scientist experimenting with the human brain and was against the Bible and organised religion. Don't confuse the two.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
If you were to be transported back in time, knowing the world you know today, and made to live in ancient Judea, Babylon, Egypt, India etc you'd want to come back pretty soon.

It's easy to fantasize about the past, some people think the 80s were cool (I do!), but you wouldn't want to live under a theocracy with constant warfare surrounding you, little security, constant murder, religion decreed capital punishment by stoning or by sword, people shitting in the streets, bandits roaming outside the villages. Many of the modern liberal spiritual interpretations of religious texts came to be in more modern societies which had more sanitation, educaton and welfare. That's how religion changes. When things are bad and there is little order, religion is strict and lacks the liberal interpretations. When people are safe their imagination wanders and comes up with new ideas, sometimes even incorporating modern scientific discoveries as in your comparison of the sephiroths and quantum physics.

Ancient Egypt or Babylon? Hell yeah, I'd love that. Living in Alexandria during the time of the great library would be the best, IMO. As for Judea, it depends on who's occupying it at the time. Murder? Go to Chicago or Miami some time. Shitting in the streets? Try Paris or Shanghai. Theocracy? Rome or Salt Lake City. People don't typically change, only the suits that they wear.


You're already quite set against any comparisons between modern science and spirituality, so I'd never bother posting such information (as I did above) for your sake. I'm not going to say it's "pearls before swine", but that would be fairly close to the truth in regards to certain people. Some are ready to see and hear certain things, others aren't. That's just the way it goes.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Tim Leary was a scientist experimenting with the human brain...

That's a rather popular excuse.

"Turn on, tune in, and drop out."

People getting killed, shitting everywhere, mayhem, chaos... I'm sure Woodstock was pretty interesting.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You're already quite set against any comparisons between modern science and spirituality, so I'd never bother posting such information (as I did above) for your sake. I'm not going to say it's "pearls before swine", but that would be fairly close to the truth in regards to certain people. Some are ready to see and hear certain things, others aren't. That's just the way it goes.

I think I'm on somebody's ignore list. After all, you haven't responded to any of my posts.

Reading this, though, I'd have to say that you, MacNStein, are the most arrogant person on these boards. That's saying a lot, too, cause Cipher and I are pretty bad.

Oh, well, I doubt you'll respond to this post, either. You should follow your luddite mystic impulses, and go live in a cabin in Montana or something. You might find Tibet or Nepal to your liking, too. Me, I'll stick with the rule of law and empiricism.

BlackGriffen

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That's a rather popular excuse.

"Turn on, tune in, and drop out."

That famous phrase has been misinterpreted as anarchy because of rightwing reactions to Leary in the 60s.

Turn on the brain,
Tune in to the brain
Drop out of reality and let the brain take you on a journey into your subconscious.

Knee jerk reactions interpreted it as turning on TV, tuning into channels and dropping out of school and society. Dumb. Leary was interested in how the brain operates and the operating of it using medicinal herbs, drugs and spirituality. He was only a scientist, a Harvard doctor, who was trying to study the shamanism of bygone eras. He was staunchly opposed to organised and monotheistic religion because they tell people to follow a set of beliefs rather than explore the workings of the mind. He was Gallileo of the brain.

And the people who villainized him and tried to keep him in a prison were, no surprise, rightwing Christian types.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ancient Egypt or Babylon? Hell yeah, I'd love that. Living in Alexandria during the time of the great library would be the best, IMO. As for Judea, it depends on who's occupying it at the time. Murder? Go to Chicago or Miami some time. Shitting in the streets? Try Paris or Shanghai. Theocracy? Rome or Salt Lake City. People don't typically change, only the suits that they wear.

You'd love Ancient Egypt? People could be convicted of crimes on little evidence and have their noses chopped off. You would have seen these poor sods walking the streets with a big hole in their face.

Babylon? Women who demanded divorces were drowned or hung from bridges. Hands were cut from thieves. Think Saudi Arabia but ten times worse.

Alexandria? As long as you were literate and part of an accepted group otherwise you wouldn't be allowed inside the library. It wasn't the Beverly Hills Town Hall Library or something.

Judea? Depends who's ruling over them? The Rabbis advocated stoning to death and anyone found suffering from unknown ailments were thrown out of the towns to live in the deserts instead of anyone trying to figure out a treatment for them.

You're free to go to Iran or Aghanistan today to see how they lived back then. In fact, it was far worse back then.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ancient Egypt or Babylon? Hell yeah, I'd love that. Living in Alexandria during the time of the great library would be the best, IMO. As for Judea, it depends on who's occupying it at the time. Murder? Go to Chicago or Miami some time. Shitting in the streets? Try Paris or Shanghai. Theocracy? Rome or Salt Lake City. People don't typically change, only the suits that they wear.

With time comes innovation; I think you take much too much for granted.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I think I'm on somebody's ignore list. After all, you haven't responded to any of my posts.

Reading this, though, I'd have to say that you, MacNStein, are the most arrogant person on these boards. That's saying a lot, too, cause Cipher and I are pretty bad.

Oh, well, I doubt you'll respond to this post, either. You should follow your luddite mystic impulses, and go live in a cabin in Montana or something. You might find Tibet or Nepal to your liking, too. Me, I'll stick with the rule of law and empiricism.

BlackGriffen

You have my apologies, I thought I had answered your question earlier.

These laws are exact (short times and distances excepted, thank you Mr. Heisenberg). The third, which works even for short times and distances, requires that all three of the familiar spacial dimensions be identical.

Seeing as how I see no name repeated three times on that list, I think that it's pretty safe to say that this is a coincidence.

Yes, they are given 3 times. the names of the spheres are simply common names in reference to their individual attributes. Each one of the spheres, however, has a name of "God" attached to it

The divine names (names of "God") given to Tiphareth, Netzach, and Malkuth begin with YHVH (26); YHVH Eloah, YHVH Tzevaoth, YHVH Aretz. Further, YHVH Eloah = 52 (sphere 6), YHVH Tzevaoth = 78 (sphere 7), YHVH Aretz = 156 (sphere 10), respectively... all are multiples of 26.

Below is a very simplified rendering of the Tree of Life.



note the sephiroth (spheres) in numerical order:

1. Kether (crown)
2. Chokmah (wisdom)
3. Binah (understanding)
4. Chesod (mercy)
5. Geburah (justice)
6. Tiphereth (beauty)
7. Netzah (victory)
8. Hod (glory)
9. Yetzirah (foundation)
10. Malkut (kingdom).

the sphere that is only a dotted outline is there to represent Daat (it is normally represented farther up the tree between 2 and 3, which is much more correct). However, since it is not constant (it "winks" in and out of existence according to our perception), it is not normally numbered with the other 10. As I said earlier:

"Now SS theory requires 10 or 11 dimensions (11 for M theory), I think the above covers either rather completely. M theory actually calls for 10 dimensions with another that functions as an "identifier" or "bridge" (according to Dr. Brian Greene)... that's interesting, because that is what Daat does, bridges between Chokmah and Binah. Further, Daat also serves as the "Aurit" (identifier) for the 10 main spheres (and contains the knowledge of them all)."

True, this could all be a big coincidence, I will admit that. However, in my view, it's close enough for me to continue studying these forms and see how many more similarities exist in this vein.

To confirm a previous statement; yeah, I'm very arrogant. I don't make excuses for it, it's the way I am. Luckily, I'm very openminded towards people of any spiritual belief. Though, I have to say, it may be a bit rough for any atheists who take a theology/comparative religion course that I'll be teaching (if they're obnoxious or belligerent_about their views).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
You'd love Ancient Egypt? People could be convicted of crimes on little evidence and have their noses chopped off. You would have seen these poor sods walking the streets with a big hole in their face.

Babylon? Women who demanded divorces were drowned or hung from bridges. Hands were cut from thieves. Think Saudi Arabia but ten times worse.

Alexandria? As long as you were literate and part of an accepted group otherwise you wouldn't be allowed inside the library. It wasn't the Beverly Hills Town Hall Library or something.

Judea? Depends who's ruling over them? The Rabbis advocated stoning to death and anyone found suffering from unknown ailments were thrown out of the towns to live in the deserts instead of anyone trying to figure out a treatment for them.

You're free to go to Iran or Aghanistan today to see how they lived back then. In fact, it was far worse back then.

No doubt those places/times were more stern than most societies today. But, given my work ethic and capacity, I'd be part of some clerical or religious class. I just think it would be exciting/beneficial to learn from some of those earlier minds... it's frightening to ponder how much we've lost.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No doubt those places/times were more stern than most societies today. But, given my work ethic and capacity, I'd be part of some clerical or religious class. I just think it would be exciting/beneficial to learn from some of those earlier minds... it's frightening to ponder how much we've lost.

So you'd be a member of the oppressive theocratic regimes then? Well done. Another self-righteous phony.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
So you'd be a member of the oppressive theocratic regimes then? Well done. Another self-righteous phony.

hahahaha, you'd throw away all the ancient knowledge we've lost because you don't agree with their politics? Wow, that's pretty stupid.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You have my apologies, I thought I had answered your question earlier.

Yes, they are given 3 times. the names of the spheres are simply common names in reference to their individual attributes. Each one of the spheres, however, has a name of "God" attached to it

The divine names (names of "God") given to Tiphareth, Netzach, and Malkuth begin with YHVH (26); YHVH Eloah, YHVH Tzevaoth, YHVH Aretz. Further, YHVH Eloah = 52 (sphere 6), YHVH Tzevaoth = 78 (sphere 7), YHVH Aretz = 156 (sphere 10), respectively... all are multiples of 26.

Sorry, but you lost me. Please just let me know whether or not three of the spheres are considered to be identical to the point of being indistinguishable.

True, this could all be a big coincidence, I will admit that. However, in my view, it's close enough for me to continue studying these forms and see how many more similarities exist in this vein.

If we were talking about a real number, like the fine structure constant then I'd be interested. We're talking about integers, though. The probability of some collection of stuff having the same integer value as something in science is actually pretty good.

BlackGriffen

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
hahahaha, you'd throw away all the ancient knowledge we've lost because you don't agree with their politics? Wow, that's pretty stupid.

We haven't lost any ancient knowledge. We've got far more now but people like you are stuck in the past because you feel your religion and religious rule, which gives you comfort amongst a group of people, is better than a society where people are free to be individuals with personal liberty and the freedom to understand the workings of the mind, body and the world around.

That's why you attack Leary, attack science and attack secular democracy in favor of a fantasy theocracy with 'ancient knowledge'.

You're free to live in a mudbrick temple, force your daughter to cover her head, rub sticks together to start a fire and worship a deity that some claim wrote books and laws.

You might resemble a war on terrorism target though, but don't worry if a Christian fundamentalist warmonger drops a bomb on you. He's got the same religious beliefs.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sorry, but you lost me. Please just let me know whether or not three of the spheres are considered to be identical to the point of being indistinguishable.


If we were talking about a real number, like the fine structure constant then I'd be interested. We're talking about integers, though. The probability of some collection of stuff having the same integer value as something in science is actually pretty good.

BlackGriffen

Coincidence is a possibility, however, given that both are talking about the same subject (multi-dimensional construction). I think it's quite plausable.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
We haven't lost any ancient knowledge. We've got far more now but people like you are stuck in the past because you feel your religion and religious rule, which gives you comfort amongst a group of people, is better than a society where people are free to be individuals with personal liberty and the freedom to understand the workings of the mind, body and the world around.

That's why you attack Leary, attack science and attack secular democracy in favor of a fantasy theocracy with 'ancient knowledge'.

You're free to live in a mudbrick temple, force your daughter to cover her head, rub sticks together to start a fire and worship a deity that some claim wrote books and laws.

You might resemble a war on terrorism target though, but don't worry if a Christian fundamentalist warmonger drops a bomb on you. He's got the same religious beliefs.

*WOOSH!!!* (the sound of the conversation going right over Rooney's head)

I'm talking about studying with their philosophers, artisans, and scholars and you're babbling about secular democracy and bombing terrorists. At what point did you start foaming at the mouth and lose control of your bowels?

...and if you think we haven't lost anything (I've never heard anyone make that ridiculous statement), then you truly are a fool (the hanging gradens of Babylon, the Egyptian pyramids, Colossus of Rhodes, aforementioned libary of Alexandria, Temple of Solomon, etc.). You do understand that the idiots who don't understand the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them, don't you? Or if we had a better idea regarding their technological advancements, especially in light of their seemingly more primitive tools, we could improve upon our own designs. Not to mention a better view of their own histories and social workings.

No doubt though, you're so enamoured with our own advancements that you can't see how we can still improve things 1000 fold. We're still only a few steps removed from being cavemen. We simply have better caves, hotter fire, and rayon.

Point, I've NEVER faulted science. On that you're completely full of sh!t. In fact, I'm all for FULL stem cell research, better financing in genetics and cloning, and for smacking around the energy companies for not doing more than they're able.

Point, Leary was a crack-pot who, perhaps at first had noble ideals, became just another druggie trying to convince people how they can expand their minds with dope. Nice contribution to society. Loser.

Point, a secular democratic republic is great. I never said it wasn't and I think it's the best way to go, given our day and age.

Counter? or do you have any points left?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*WOOSH!!!* (the sound of the conversation going right over Rooney's head)

I'm talking about studying with their philosophers, artisans, and scholars and you're babbling about secular democracy and bombing terrorists. At what point did you start foaming at the mouth and lose control of your bowels?

OK. Overreaction.

But tell me what valuable ancient knowledge does one get from priests who advocate stoning, human sacrifice and were brainwashing and ruling over people with gods of their own invention?

If you ask me the liberal and spiritual interpretations didn't come from the priestly class but those they ruled over who sought the alternative.

And what kind of priest would you be if you call people 'piece of sh!t'? No doubt a tyrant and murderer.

As for Leary, he never advocated that people should use drugs en masse. He was only interested in his controlled experiments. Try reading some interviews some time.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
OK. Overreaction.

But tell me what valuable ancient knowledge does one get from priests who advocate stoning, human sacrifice and were brainwashing and ruling over people with gods of their own invention?

If you ask me the liberal and spiritual interpretations didn't come from the priestly class but those they ruled over who sought the alternative.

And what kind of priest would you be if you call people 'piece of sh!t'? No doubt a tyrant and murderer.

As for Leary, he never advocated that people should use drugs en masse. He was only interested in his controlled experiments. Try reading some interviews some time.

What valuable ancient knowledge? How about building the largest monuments the Earth has ever known, though they had insufficient manpower, bronze/copper tools, and supposedly deficient mathematical skills? How about art and culture, history and lineages, not to mention the metaphysical implications that SOME of us believe will lead us to a better understanding of archetypal forms?

Politics and power led people to slaughter others in the names of some gods. It's forever been that way. Humans want control, and they'll use anything to get it. You and others hate the vehicle others have used to gain what they want (ie. religion) instead of looking at the root causes; greed and power.

Just how primitive do you think WE will apear to individuals who live 2000 years from now? That is if we survive that long, given we have a bad habit of forgetting past events.

What kind of priest would I be? A dead one, more than likely. I'm way too outspoken. So, you think that calling someone a "piece of sh!t" = murder and tyranny? Pfffttt. I only verbally assault people who spread misinformation, several people here on MacNN can attest to this. I'm very frank in regards to what I think, diplomacy is not one of my virtues.

Leary? Yeah, he said a lot of things, some were true, some weren't. but LSD and PCP, however, aren't safe ways to expand your mind. Sheesh. He was just part of a, thankfully, dead culture.

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...
To confirm a previous statement; yeah, I'm very arrogant. I don't make excuses for it, it's the way I am. Luckily, I'm very openminded towards people of any spiritual belief. Though, I have to say, it may be a bit rough for any atheists who take a theology/comparative religion course that I'll be teaching (if they're obnoxious or belligerent_about their views).

I'm a spiritual person, and my spirit tells me to tell you that reading your posts is like wiping one's butt with razor wire, only more unpleasant.

I cannot believe you're still at it, after 13 pages of religious hatred and bigotry and simple mind numbing stupidity. If anyone lets you within a mile of a teaching position, I would be very shocked, as you show NO, and I mean absolutely NO teaching ability whatsoever. If they do, however, it would go a long way towards explaining the crisis in American education.

P.S. Your definition of openminded may fit Adolf Hitler's or Ghengiz Khan's, but it certainly doesn't fit aynone else's.

P.P.S. The only thing this thread has proven is that Godwin's law is a load of shit.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'm a spiritual person, and my spirit tells me to tell you that reading your posts is like wiping one's butt with razor wire, only more unpleasant.

I cannot believe you're still at it, after 13 pages of religious hatred and bigotry and simple mind numbing stupidity. If anyone lets you within a mile of a teaching position, I would be very shocked, as you show NO, and I mean absolutely NO teaching ability whatsoever. If they do, however, it would go a long way towards explaining the crisis in American education.

P.S. Your definition of openminded may fit Adolf Hitler's or Ghengiz Khan's, but it certainly doesn't fit aynone else's.

P.P.S. The only thing this thread has proven is that Godwin's law is a load of shit.

Hmmm... you mean like most of the nutsack atheists on this board? Yeah, they're VERY openminded. You (and many of the anti-theists) are just peeved that someone here on MacNN doesn't take the anti-religious crap on here without speaking their mind. You're a spiritual person, right? And you have no problem with someone calling you an idiot because of it? I deal with civil and non-aggressive people in a civil and non-aggressive manner. If, however, a person comes at me viciously they'll get what they have coming to them. What's interesting, is that you're judging me by my persona on an online board... does that seem a little off to you? I'm not nearly so confrontational in "real life", it's part of the MacNStein identity. Anyone comes after a religious or spiritual individual here on MacNN, and I will get medieval on them. Think about it, there's a reason this has evolved this way.

BTW, I've already secured a college teaching position, and am getting my Ph.D (with honors) at the end of Spring.

PS. And another thing, I've heard you dismantle people for not agreeing with you, so why are you popping in here just to yell at me?

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I deal with civil and non-aggressive people in a civil and non-aggressive manner.

Bwahahahhehehehehehehhahahahahahhehehehehehebawhah ahahahahahhehehehehehahahahahwhwhwhwhehehhwhfahf ;ldsdl bnbmbvsb. .......choked.

[Chuckmcd]

I've avoided this thread to see what happened to it, and I'm sorely disappointed that it hasn't died yet.

Why can we not understand (as a forum if not a species) that people are gonna disagree with us! If we all agreed there wouldn't be much use in talking now would there?

I believe something, and I do evangelize based on that belief; not because I was the world to conform to me, but because out of concern for others I share what I have faith in as the truth. I may never know in a tangible sense in my life time that I am right... I will never be able to point to empirical data to say I'm right... but that's faith. By the way there is no empirical data to support the position that only things that can be empirically proven are correct.

That doesn't mean I have to be rude to people who think differently from myself.

All the more to people of faith here... Those with no creed should not be expected to act according to your creed... but that doesn't change what is expected of those of us who do claim a creed!

I'm stepping off my soap box now.. please let this thread die.

[benb]

This thread needs some Elmer Fudd.

Originally posted by RooneyX:
We haven't wost any ancient knowwedge. We've got faw mowe now but peopwe wike you awe stuck in the past because you feew youw wewigion and wewigious wuwe, which gives you comfowt amongst a gwoup of peopwe, is bettew than a society whewe peopwe awe fwee to be individuaws wif pewsonaw wibewty and the fweedom to undewstand the wowkings of the mind, body and the wowwd awound. Dat's why you attack Weawy, attack science and attack secuwaw democwacy in favow of a fantasy theocwacy wif 'ancient knowwedge'. You'we fwee to wive in a mudbwick tempwe, fowce youw daughtew to covew hew head, wub sticks togethew to stawt a fiwe and wowship a deity that some cwaim wwote books and waws. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! You might wesembwe a waw on tewwowism tawget though, but don't wowwy if a Chwistian fundamentawist wawmongew dwops a bomb on you. He's got the same wewigious bewiefs. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!

Much better.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Bwahahahhehehehehehehhahahahahahhehehehehehebawhah ahahahahahhehehehehehahahahahwhwhwhwhehehhwhfahf ;ldsdl bnbmbvsb. .......choked.

You're one of the most aggressively anti-theist people on this board. And you're treated as such

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benb:
This thread needs some Elmer Fudd.



Much better.

Post of the day!

[quandarry]

god is the sum total of the laws of the universe.

god did not create the universe, god is the universe.

the universe is limitless and beautiful.

the universe is order even if a part seems in chaos.

to everthing there is a purpose.

who can blame mankind for creating gods for things that he cannot comprehend and in time these god(s) become mans salvation because he knows he has weaknesses and needs a spiritual forgiver.

and after a while man begins to write dumb stuff about his god(s)...the jewish bible, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda...

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Hmmm... you mean like most of the nutsack atheists on this board? ...
BTW, I've already secured a college teaching position, and am getting my Ph.D (with honors) at the end of Spring.

PS. And another thing, I've heard you dismantle people for not agreeing with you, so why are you popping in here just to yell at me?

God save American education (pun intentended). I think the only hope your future students have of a good education is that you use the same language with them as you do here ("Nutsack atheists" for example), after which they'll get a new lecturer.

And no, I'm not an atheist, but neither am I a follower of any of the religions that I know about as religions, historically seem to have been more interested in maintaining power through fear and propaganda. I believe in the light within everything, and that's it. I don't believe God is a he or a she or even an entity as such.

I also think you should be free to believe whatever flavour of religion fits your personal traumas, biases, loves, hates etc. At the same time I see a marching line of progress in your country where more and more people are falling for primitiive reactionary teachings, tailored to keep them stupid and pliable. I find it really sad because it's not what got your country to the heights it is today, despite all the failings of various politicians.

However, people like you, claiming to be posessors of the Truth�, are just as bad as people like me, because you fail the test of being able to make your point of view understandable to others, and instead drop back into the typical MacNN slagging match style and schoolboy egoism.

What are you going to do with students who have honest points of discussion, call them obnoxious nutsack atheists and fail them because they don't agree with you? You think you'll last long in that job with an attitude like that.

[vmpaul]

It's been a long thread. I've read almost every post. Thanks to MacNStein for following up with some of his theories. I've read his and BlackGriffen's posts several times. I'm no religious scholar and certainly no mathematician but that doesn't seem like much proof to me.

According to the above analysis (regarding Superstring, Unified Theories, Kabbalah, etc.) he's in the numbers. Isn't that a bit weak and esoteric for an all-encompassing and omnipotent entity? I don't know about you but my reaction is the same as when I hear that people are worshipping the face of Jesus in a flour tortilla in Oaxaca. Is that supposed to be a sign? Is that the best he can do? If so, God needs a better Communications Director.

At best, it's an interesting coincidence of a few philosophical texts. Nothing more. Not even surprising that a few philosophers would come to similar conclusions. At worst it's selective editing of data to arrive at a hoped-for and expected conclusion. It's speculation and theory with no empirical evidence. Hardly iron clad proof of an existence of a deity. Doesn't even come close to the standards of modern day science and its methodology. Not to be arrogant about it, I didn't expect any more than that.

As man's knowledge has moved forward to explain the cause and effect of the world around him, God has retreated. In the beginning of mankind, we were told, God was involved in every aspect of human existence. He was responsible for the sunshine, rain, crops, the victors and the vanquished in war, health, marriage, fertility and death. You name it. The list is endless.

Now, to anybody but literal Bible readers, he's faded to be just the spark of the Big Bang, the setup man for Evolution and responsible for the occasional touchdown. I ask, how can anybody who even claims to do any critical thinking look at the big picture and not recognize the pattern? What happens when we start to actually have valid answers for some of the big remaining questions? What cubbyhole will the theists claim he's in then? In 50, 100 or 1000 years will God have anywhere else to hide?

So, I'm curious MacNStein, why the antagonism towards atheists? Or the 'nutsack atheists' as you call them. All we're asking for is proof. Is that so bad? After the history of persecution, wars, murder, torture, all in the name of God or in his authority. Is being a skeptic and asking for authentication for that authority so out of line? Maybe it's the overzealousness of modern atheists. Is that it? If so I can understand. It's not unlike born-again christions in that respect and we've all experienced that. But to disparage atheists because they prefer to rely on evidence rather than mere belief seems unfair.

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Probably not too much that will be seen in the near future. Though I expect the fields of genetics and computing will be the next areas to see the most change and exposure... call it a hunch, but I feel that a few things are going to come out in the next several years that will truly startle some people. Some "variances" in existing human genetic code will cause quite a stir. I'm still looking at trends and studies, so I'm not sure regarding particular findings. However, I have no doubt it'll be wild and entertaining in some respects... and frightening in others.

Certainly genetics/genomics/molecular biology are the fields which will see the greatest change and exposure over the next few years. Think structural genomics. Highthroughput drug discovery and design.

Indeed, these fields are already eclipsing most other scientific disciplines in terms of exposure and some might argue sheer productivity as well.

I don't understand what you imply by quoting "variances" in relation to the human genome. I'm taking this to mean you are quoting a technical term and not implying methodological artefacts. From my prespective, once wholesale analysis of variations and their heritable groupings becomes widely available over the next two years, we will see an even quicker pace of discovery -- along with tremendous social and political consequences.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It's been a long thread. I've read almost every post. Thanks to MacNStein for following up with some of his theories. I've read his and BlackGriffen's posts several times. I'm no religious scholar and certainly no mathematician but that doesn't seem like much proof to me.

According to the above analysis (regarding Superstring, Unified Theories, Kabbalah, etc.) he's in the numbers. Isn't that a bit weak and esoteric for an all-encompassing and omnipotent entity? I don't know about you but my reaction is the same as when I hear that people are worshipping the face of Jesus in a flour tortilla in Oaxaca. Is that supposed to be a sign? Is that the best he can do? If so, God needs a better Communications Director.

At best, it's an interesting coincidence of a few philosophical texts. Nothing more. Not even surprising that a few philosophers would come to similar conclusions. At worst it's selective editing of data to arrive at a hoped-for and expected conclusion. It's speculation and theory with no empirical evidence. Hardly iron clad proof of an existence of a deity. Doesn't even come close to the standards of modern day science and its methodology. Not to be arrogant about it, I didn't expect any more than that.

As man's knowledge has moved forward to explain the cause and effect of the world around him, God has retreated. In the beginning of mankind, we were told, God was involved in every aspect of human existence. He was responsible for the sunshine, rain, crops, the victors and the vanquished in war, health, marriage, fertility and death. You name it. The list is endless.

Now, to anybody but literal Bible readers, he's faded to be just the spark of the Big Bang, the setup man for Evolution and responsible for the occasional touchdown. I ask, how can anybody who even claims to do any critical thinking look at the big picture and not recognize the pattern? What happens when we start to actually have valid answers for some of the big remaining questions? What cubbyhole will the theists claim he's in then? In 50, 100 or 1000 years will God have anywhere else to hide?

So, I'm curious MacNStein, why the antagonism towards atheists? Or the 'nutsack atheists' as you call them. All we're asking for is proof. Is that so bad? After the history of persecution, wars, murder, torture, all in the name of God or in his authority. Is being a skeptic and asking for authentication for that authority so out of line? Maybe it's the overzealousness of modern atheists. Is that it? If so I can understand. It's not unlike born-again christions in that respect and we've all experienced that. But to disparage atheists because they prefer to rely on evidence rather than mere belief seems unfair.

I was fine with Atheists on here... for a while. Until I finally got tired of the BS comments like, "You believe in god? You're an idiot." or "I can't believe you morons still think there's a god." So, I'm over being passive about it, and I will lash out and be generally foul-tempered towards the offenders. They can put me on their ignore list, but others will see my posts and understand that the type of religious biggotry that anti-Theists are shoveling just isn't going to stand around here anymore.


As for the comparisons of SS and Kabbalah; if people don't see (or don't want to see) the similarities, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It could be coincidence, but I for one, very much doubt it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by theolein:
God save American education (pun intentended). I think the only hope your future students have of a good education is that you use the same language with them as you do here ("Nutsack atheists" for example), after which they'll get a new lecturer.

And no, I'm not an atheist, but neither am I a follower of any of the religions that I know about as religions, historically seem to have been more interested in maintaining power through fear and propaganda. I believe in the light within everything, and that's it. I don't believe God is a he or a she or even an entity as such.

I also think you should be free to believe whatever flavour of religion fits your personal traumas, biases, loves, hates etc. At the same time I see a marching line of progress in your country where more and more people are falling for primitiive reactionary teachings, tailored to keep them stupid and pliable. I find it really sad because it's not what got your country to the heights it is today, despite all the failings of various politicians.

However, people like you, claiming to be posessors of the Truth�, are just as bad as people like me, because you fail the test of being able to make your point of view understandable to others, and instead drop back into the typical MacNN slagging match style and schoolboy egoism.

What are you going to do with students who have honest points of discussion, call them obnoxious nutsack atheists and fail them because they don't agree with you? You think you'll last long in that job with an attitude like that.

Me? Have the "truth"? hahahaha That's pretty good. No, I have what's true for me, and that's all. It's up to everyone else to find their OWN truth.

I'm just tired of the anti-Theist biggotry and abuse here on MacNN. Read my previous post.

And watch where you're pointing the "egotism" type comments, I've seen you slugging it out in the Political forum... and it ain't pretty.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
A true "Christian" wouldn't. But, since I'm not Christian, I feel free to call things as I see them.

You're also not very mature.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Hmmm... you mean like most of the nutsack atheists on this board? Yeah, they're VERY openminded. You (and many of the anti-theists) are just peeved that someone here on MacNN doesn't take the anti-religious crap on here without speaking their mind. You're a spiritual person, right? And you have no problem with someone calling you an idiot because of it? I deal with civil and non-aggressive people in a civil and non-aggressive manner. If, however, a person comes at me viciously they'll get what they have coming to them.

LOL.

You talk BS, we expose your BS, you call us morons.

That's civil?

So, is the christian scientist in the germ warfare lab more moral and ethical than the atheist next to them?

Are the christian scientists developing weapons more moral and ethical than the atheists working along side them?

Not anti-religion. Anti-BS. You have been called out, and you couldn't accept the critisism. Real mature.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
LOL.

You talk BS, we expose your BS, you call us morons.

That's civil?

So, is the christian scientist in the germ warfare lab more moral and ethical than the atheist next to them?

Are the christian scientists developing weapons more moral and ethical than the atheists working along side them?

Not anti-religion. Anti-BS. You have been called out, and you couldn't accept the critisism. Real mature.

If you're going to start insulting people for simply having religious views, then yes, I'll call you bad names and say things that will make you feel bad. Have a nice day.

and no, no one's called me on "jack". They have their opinons on this and I have mine.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by xenu:
You're also not very mature.

You mean I can't play down here on the Atheists' lower ethical level? Shoot. They can insult and we can't? Damn... that sucks.

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...

And watch where you're pointing the "egotism" type comments, I've seen you slugging it out in the Political forum... and it ain't pretty.

I am not the one looking to influence and guide young minds. That's you, if I remember correctly. I am quite the bastard sometimes, that's quite correct, but I don't make attempts at any position of morality that I don't have. I use my mind to try to cut through what I see as bull, as it were, and it sometimes makes me enemies on both sides of the fence, and it's just fine like that.

[adamk]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
BTW, I've already secured a college teaching position, and am getting my Ph.D (with honors) at the end of Spring.

MacNStein, what is your dissertation title?

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If you're going to start insulting people for simply having religious views, then yes, I'll call you bad names and say things that will make you feel bad. Have a nice day.

and no, no one's called me on "jack". They have their opinons on this and I have mine.

Where did I insult you?

You arrogantly claim "spiritual" scientists are more moral and ethical than non-spiritual scientist.

I called you out, gave you counter examples using christians and atheists. Replace them with any religious belief you like.

Your "argument" then became name calling.

All you do is make yourself look bad with your foolish generalisations.

You wrote BS. You were called out. You couldn't take the critisism. You reverted to childish name calling. Real mature.

[xenu]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You mean I can't play down here on the Atheists' lower ethical level? Shoot. They can insult and we can't? Damn... that sucks.

Real mature. How old are you?

"Atheists lower ethical level"? What would that be? Your make believe one, or something you have experienced first hand?

Why don't you give us the figures for the number of atheists in jail for rape, compared to the number of christians? Since we have a lower ethical level, the number should be significantly larger for atheists.

Why don't you give us the number of atheist child molesters, compared to the number of "spiritual" child molesters. Since we have a lower ethical level, there should be significantly more atheists.

BTW, when did I insult you?

[ambush]

MacNStein == Zimphire?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Coincidence is a possibility, however, given that both are talking about the same subject (multi-dimensional construction). I think it's quite plausable.

I take this to mean that the theological point you bring up lacks the internal structure of having three of the dimensions be identical/indistinguishable.

You can probably find a coincidence with the following numbers as well:

Number of types of electric charge: 2
Number of types of color charge (strong force): 3
Number of dimensions in general relativity: 4
Number of fundamental forces: 4
Number of fundamental particles (fermions): 12

I'm sure that there are plenty more. Like I said, when they get a real number, like the fine structure constant, right to at least within three significant digits, then I may be interested. Until then, it's just the shot in the dark that happened to hit a target.

But then what am I saying, these people couldn't even get pi to better than one digit, in spite of the fact that Archimedes did significantly better.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by theolein:
I am not the one looking to influence and guide young minds. That's you, if I remember correctly. I am quite the bastard sometimes, that's quite correct, but I don't make attempts at any position of morality that I don't have. I use my mind to try to cut through what I see as bull, as it were, and it sometimes makes me enemies on both sides of the fence, and it's just fine like that.

What attempts at a position of morality? I don't have any moral problem with giving someone hell over being a turd.

Again, what I say and do on HERE do not reflect on my real life... in fact, this place often works as a safety valve to let me get rid of pent up irritations.

[adamk]

Originally posted by xenu:

Why don't you give us the figures for the number of atheists in jail for rape, compared to the number of christians? Since we have a lower ethical level, the number should be significantly larger for atheists.

FWIW..
Correctional Populations in United States, 1997: Full report - PDF

religious affiliation is not included in the report. but this letter is a follow-up to the report, dealing with the question of religion. note that this doesn't differentiate on the severity of crimes.

Code:
Dear Mr. Swift:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates.  The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response              Number      %
----------------------------  --------
Catholic               29267   39.164%
Protestant             26162   35.008%
Muslim                  5435    7.273%
American Indian         2408    3.222%
Nation                  1734    2.320%
Rasta                   1485    1.987%
Jewish                  1325    1.773%
Church of Christ        1303    1.744%
Pentecostal             1093    1.463%
Moorish                 1066    1.426%
Buddhist                 882    1.180%
Jehovah Witness          665    0.890%
Adventist                621    0.831%
Orthodox                 375    0.502%
Mormon                   298    0.399%
Scientology              190    0.254%
Atheist                  156    0.209%
Hindu                    119    0.159%
Santeria                 117    0.157%
Sikh                      14    0.019%
Bahai                      9    0.012%
Krishna                    7    0.009%
----------------------------  --------
Total Known Responses  74731  100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

Unknown/No Answer      18381
----------------------------
Total Convicted        93112  80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.

Held in Custody         3856  (not surveyed due to temporary custody)
----------------------------
Total In Prisons       96968

I hope that this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Denise Golumbaski
Research Analyst
Federal Bureau of Prisons

i wonder what all those jehovah's witnesses are in for?