Haha, im just ****in with ye.

Translation


Sound - That was nice of you, appreciated, Cool

Kiiiid - Man, friend, peer.


Plimentcom - Some **** I made up just there.

lol

Of course I'm generalizing, there are people in this world who drink gasoline because they think it tastes good. This being stated, I think we're talking past one another, as one's position on gun control doesn't strike me as a moral position.

Well if you're generalizing you probably shouldn't use all-encompassing terms like "anyone" :nono:

That's the only reason I felt compelled to defend my position. I don't think morals are clear cut, the definition isn't very specific in and of itself:

Dude, gasoline goes great with any meal.

You really shouldn't drink gasoline, it could cause Leukemia.

I'm a Polytheist. I find it fascinating that there COULD be all these majestic gods and goddesses out there. I can't prove anything i just rather want to believe and i enjoy honoring them and talking with others that feel the same.

I prefer a nice huff, or even better, a juff.

Urban Dictionary

To be blatantly honest, atheism is the main trigger of my depression. I experienced happiness being brought up to believe in god and euphoria when I discovered buddhist philosophy.

Nevertheless, my agnosticism and atheism in recent years leaves me with a great gap of unfulfilment; an existential crisis that Dawkins and others who think they are liberating people cannot seem to comprehend.

I realise that atheism is currently the most probable universal truth. However, as strange as it is to believe in imaginary friends, I think it is just as strange that we are here for no reason at all.

I don't take any comfort in that as it actually interferes with my morality in that I don't believe the universe is inherently moral. Everything is more determined by events 13.7 billion years ago which I don't know, as opposed to any illusion of free will I may have had in the past that motivated me to live with compassion.

im agnostic, the only comfort i get is in knowing god may or may not exist. :laughing:

Me too, i was much happier when i believed in god..
now im a cynic who doesn't know what to believe in.

I tend to write down "music" as my religious/political belief on any forms I have to fill in.

:beer:

im more pretentious, i proudly call myself an agnostic cause it sounds smarter than being a christian. lol

It's the perfect middle ground for me..
this way i can tell christians and atheist "You're both full of Sh%t, what do you know!?"

I'm an atheist. Proud to be one and loving it.

I've never understood those who take pride in it.

I'm not especially proud to not believe in Santa any more. It's just the way things happened, same goes for any god.

Essentially, I'm agnostic. I was pretty atheist until one experience that made me not so sure. It may sound completely stupid, but it really was important and shaped my opinions pretty heavily. Still not wholly sold on a deity, but the experience was pretty intense.

You're right. It is pretty stupid to say I'm proud of it. I guess I meant that it was somewhat difficult to escape from religion in a very catholic country. But can't really say I'm proud of having done it, you're right. Sort of happy, though. You're surely happy you don't believe in Santa anymore, being as old as you are, aye?

Are you unable to share this experience? I'm intrigued. :yeah:

Again not really. I'd rather not have experienced Santa or God now that I know the concepts I learnt were lies because I was happier when I believed them. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Don't get me wrong, up with reason and all that, but magic kicks ass. It's why I love LOTR and fantasy in general. Waiting for Santa to show up, and honestly believing that he would, were just some of the best memories I ever had. Magic just makes the world feel more wondrous and shiny. Sure, the natural world has immense beauty to it, but it also has endless light years of dark nothingness, where the very concept of existence or meaning or anything really is irrelevant. Makes me feel depressed and inconsequential. Not believing in magic might be more rational, but there's no law that says that being more rational somehow makes you or the world any happier.

Hit the nail on the head here.

I agree. However, it's also true that believing in magic will set higher expectations (or... different expectations). You'll be expecting more from life (in the case of Santa, you'll probably be expecting him to show up with a few presents; in the case of Hogwarts, you'd probably expect to get that letter). If those expectations are met, then it'll be all just as though you lived in a world without magic as a non-believer. If they are not met, then you'll be just as disappointed as you would be if you were disappointed in a world without magic. So, what I'm trying to convey here is that, ultimately, the magical world would become the normal world, and after your childhood years you wouldn't be any happier than you are today. In fact, you probably quickly forgot that Santa didn't exist once you saw you had presents under your tree (or I hope you had some :D) anyway.
But I don't disagree with you! Ignorance may very well be bliss in a lot of cases. But then again, some people prefer the bliss of knowledge (totally made that up), or feel that the truth is part of the pathway to happiness (or some **** like that!).

I don't believe this to be true. Replace the word magic with love. Now let's say you believed in love, craved for love, wanted love, expected love in return and then... fell in love. Perhaps you may have experienced something similar to this? Anyway, when you are in love, and that love is believed to be received back, your brain has so many more endorphins, so much more dopamine released that it actually provides a lot of further noticeable physical relief as well.

The level of happiness that is the norm for someone that believes in and believes they receive love is incredibly higher than those that do not. Now once you have been to Disneyland, why on earth would you want to just ride on the swings for the rest of your life?

Indeed, and if history is anything to go by, our current grasps of knowledge, truth, and free-thinking etc. will be laughed at in 1000 years, just like how many current "free-thinkers" laugh at the freest thoughts of the past millenniums. I believe there is ignorance in putting 100% faith behind anything and that includes science. Indeed science to me by definition is agnostic in that it accepts it can be proven wrong in the future, unlike many so-called scientists I have come across.

There is still a relative subjectiveness in objectivity. It's only a wave or a particle depending on the perceiver...

I just have to say that just because you were raised in a "christian" religion doesn't mean that the denominations interpretation of christianity actually represents true Christianity. If you believe that God is a God of wrath than you have been misinformed. Because that is the opposite of what Jesus taught. I wouldn't belive in God either if that was the case.
However God or the universe will be wrathful to you if that is what you put out. People who are angry tend to attract to them angry people or situations that make them angry. You reap what you sow, karma or whatever you want to call it. If you are a loving person you will encounter loving people or situations. Have you ever been punched in the face by someone you were giving nothing but love to or feeling nothing but love for? I didn't think so, god is love and love has power.

I'm sorry I just don't believe that. Think about when you go outside (if you live in the city) do you start laughing? Seriously, do you laugh when you see concrete? Because the Romans had concrete 2000 years ago.

I mean with regards to the universe and the way of understanding it. No doubt the Romans believed in an earth-centred universe. Even Einstein believed the universe was static, etcetera...

Funny you say that because it has been uncovered that 1000s of years ago they knew the planets revolved around the sun. And later the worldly belief was different. It seems like when people congregate and try to form their own little empire or govt or religion they actually regress in knowledge. And it always seem that the "worldly" perceptions are ALWAYS proved wrong in time of you study history. That kind of makes you want to open your mind up and think for yourself.

It has? Not saying this is incorrect; I'm merely curious. Do you have a link to some source that can back this up?

Hey buddy haven't heard from you in a while, hope all is well. The ancient Egyptians, have carvings in stone that are the exact same model of our solar system that we have today, and it was also written in the ancient Sumerian texts that were translated by Zacharia sitchen, I belive its in his book called "the cosmic code". The Mayans also had that knowlege.

Really? Again, not saying I think it's rubbish, but from just reading your post, how do I know what you claim is true? If it is true, then it should be possible for you to find some credible sources that back up your claims.

You know, links to some articles or something. :)

I don't know how to post links, there is enough there to do some Google searching and find what you are looking for.

Heliocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a link that shows that at least some people in Ancient Greece thought the earth revolved around the sun. I don't know anything about Egyptians or other ancient civilizations believing the same.

Indeed, but it says the following :

But it would seem Mr. Aristarchus had little support among his peers and regardless of popularity, it is not very many "1000s of years ago". I can't really see anything in that article that supports Seekn4's claim.

The reason I'm bringing it up is really just to show that Seekn4 as well as some others in this thread will happily share some rather radical claims without backing them up even the slightest if pushed just a little. In other words, people should take whatever "facts" such guys write with a barrel load of salt - at least until they can find some sources to back up their claims.

Man you guys sure don't look too hard, I did a search on you tube for zacharia sitchin and found a lecture by him in less than 5 seconds, one is called "lost realms-zacharia sitchin". The astronomy part is like 22min into it. And it was more like 6000 years ago. But I know no one here will actually take the time and do some actual research beyond Wikipedia, so disusssions are pointless here sometimes. Seems like No one really wants to put any effort in finding whats out there. Its like common knowledge that the Mayans knew this, for Pete's sake they knew the planets would be in alignment on Dec, 21, 2012, how is it you don't know this? They had a dead nuts accurate knowledge of the solar system. And I say again, how is it you don't know it, it blows me away. The whole 2012 hoopla was based on this calender and they knew the planets would be in alignment and that only happens 25,000 something years, how did they know that? And they weren't even on the same continent as the more advanced civilizations in the east.

I say all this with a smile on my face, I am not at all being condescending, though it might sound like it at times but I am not at all a hater, I'm am just an incurable smart ass, if you knew me you would love me. but my whole point
was that the worldy knowledge is proved inaccurate without fail thru entire human history, with the truth also being out there at the same time just to be disregarded, because the worldy opinion always operates as if they have it all figured out and are stubborn to believe anything new when they should be looking for the inevitable,..... that they will eventually be proved wrong, just as history shows, so they (society)hould be a little more open minded and loose the foolish pride. How much faster would society evolve if they were actually looking for the newest bit of information instead of having to get it beat in their face with it before accepting it?

I'm not saying there's no information out there. I'm questioning the credibility of that information. I mean, if it was "common knowledge" and credible sources backed it up, that information would be on Wikipedia. That I have to check out some lecture on youtube or something in order to find it means it's less likely to be backed up by credible sources.

Getting your info from Wikipedia isn't such a bad idea because it's generally made up of a consensus of opinions and that means it has a sort of built-in bullshit filter.

And by the way, the planets weren't aligned in any particularly interesting fashion last Dec. 21. :rolleyes: Just ask if you want a source to back that claim and I will find you one.

Well that was my main point. Perceptions change depending on the environment and time period. In other words, the environment we live in will always be bigger than the current common or not so common perception of it, essentially supporting the validity of agnosticism.

I was aware that some Romans may have had perceptions of the earth being a sphere due to measuring diameters and so on. However, it is severely doubtful that many people 1000 years ago realised the universe was bigger than to support human life on earth and that it was expanding - considering even Einstein did not realise the latter and many people to this present day are not bothered about it.

I hope you realize that Sitchin is universally mocked as a pseduo-historian at best and a manipulative liar at worst. Purposefully misconstruing fact and offering your own inane hypothesis based on evidence that have been categorically proved false by the entire scientific community doesn't make you a credible source unfortunately. Neither does writing a few historical fiction paperbacks.

First of the planets were lined up you can go on Google Sky and punch in that date.
Then you gotta ask yourself who is it that's discrediting him,because there are less than 200 people on this planet that can even translate that language.
Like I said Wikipedia is common consensus which is always been proven incomplete, without fail. And everything that eventually became truth was mocked by the consensus.
So if you want to find tomorrow's truth you have to look for the people that the consensus are mocking today. Now isn't that a logical way to search for the next step or "truth"
And again it seems like everyone made a descision without studying his work for yourselves, way to go "scientist" seems like science is turning into nothing different than the religions that you mock.
Blindly following, never questioning what you were taught.
Its cool you can believe what you are told with 100% faith and you have now officially become everything I have heard science claims to be against. Congrats

Instead of trying to figure out on a star map whether or not the planets were "aligned" (whatever that means), I'll just ask NASA. Oh wait, somebody already did so I don't have to.

>> Source

So if you wanna claim that the mayans knew that the planets were going to be aligned somehow last dec. 21, I call bullshit. I think it's just another one of your so called "facts", but of course feel free to rebuke.

So in order to find the truth, I have to find the ones who have not passed the quality filters of the Scientific community. I have to listen to the ones who have not been able to prove their claims. I have to listen to the ones with the most ridiculous theories.

Are you serious?

It's a fact that we can't know everything so at some point we have to put our faith in what other people tell us or have written down. That's just the way it is. A difference then between you and me is that I try to make sure my sources of information are credible sources while you don't. For reasons that seem very strange to me, you seem to follow some way of thinking that makes sure you end up with the least credible sources of information.

Tore, you know he's been banned from bringing up religious crap (Which is to say - Posting anything) in any of the off-topic forums, and therefore cannot respond to you, right?

That said, I fully agree with everything you just said. His rationale is pretty much a scientific "Haters gonna hate" - The bad kind, where people use it as an excuse to not listen to any criticism of themselves in any way because they brand everyone who disagrees with them a faceless "hater".