BajaNomad

To Doug"

 Pages:  1  ..  3    5    7

Iflyfish - 6-12-2012 at 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mcfez
Can we get back onto the subject of weird snake experiments?



Whoa! there fez, I thought we were discussing weird snake/apple experiments?

Iflyfish

DavidT - 6-12-2012 at 10:51 PM

I've always liked this idea.

You don't have a soul.
You are a soul.
You have a body.

SFandH - 6-13-2012 at 06:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
If the theists can be criticized for claiming to know the absolute truth through a book then it seems to me that scientists can be criticized for claiming truth based upon temporal data.


[Edited on 6-13-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


I'd replace the word "scientists" in you statement with "atheists". I think true scientists don't claim to know the "truth".

Theism and atheism are both beliefs in the unknowable.

[Edited on 6-13-2012 by SFandH]

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 07:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Sam Harris is one of my favorites, and listening to this talk I found that if he is correct, then I really have less reason to be cross with newbi and 777 for their inflexible stance than to feel compassion that they have no free will in the matter.


For myself, I don't believe I have portrayed any sense of being ‘cross’ with the inflexible stance of those who do not share my faith. Sorry if you experience that type of emotion for my postings vgabndo.

I have tried in a unemotional manner to correct what I felt was a mis-quoted recollection of Biblical Scripture, and rejected a paraphrasing of that Scripture as any form of accuracy, which I further cited an academic reasoning for that rejection. Whether you wish to disagree with that is not of interest to me, I accept there will be disagreement even that which is inflexible...I would respect an(academic/scholarly) reason to accept paraphrasing as an accurate replication of a quote and why it maintains the context of the far and near reach of the author. I did not find that offered and I pursued that no further as this is not the forum for such a lengthy endeavour.

I also, if I recall correctly, that I did challenge the implication of generalizing where no authority was cited for that conclusion other than personal opinion. This on the basis that there can be no critical analytical discussion of such matters when predicated by that basis, hence "personal opinions are just that" which negates an impersonal response, i.e. civil debate (in an academic sense).

My statements of desire to not be included in and perhaps for the lack of a better way to put it, the togetherness that some state binds us because we occupy the same space, is not one of intolerance, it is simply because I find no commonality in our decided foundations for a basis of inclusion. I do not desire harm on others but I do find that others have ways I would find harmful to myself and others as well. Certainly, as some have stated they find religion to be harmful, would there not be a possible counter that some find the thought processes that draw that conclusion harmful? Or is there intolerance on the other side?

I do find that for my own personal health, the engagement in certain activities and thought processes are draining of the joy I receive from my own personal choice. I do find that to present another view for the passive reader, who may not have been provided a counter to the overwhelming orgy of other views outside of those within the pages of the Bible (or only those of which the prevalent view on this thread wishes to reveal in short bites) enhances the ability of choice.

I did not jump into this discussion until some 10 pages had gone by and the higher percentage of the prior postings had turned this thread another direction towards my interests. I did not know Skeet and have no intellectual response to his decision and thus left those to others who might know him. Then others took this and ran with it on their own. Since my relatively few postings have appeared, it seems others have chosen to maintain their repetitive dialogue of which I quickly became bored with because of the simple repetition. I have not read anything proffered that was not stated in my memory since having encountered them in the 1980's. They can be presented as new and enlightening, but that is just something that I find not interesting.

I do find interesting the correction of quoting material I am well versed in and the accuracy in contextual extrapolation. That is pretty much when I jump in and become interested. I have read the material of most of the cited references including Dr. Harrison and as shocking as some others might find this, it has not swayed my viewpoints, yet I do find it engaging to understand their offerings...even if I have to read or listen several times while trying to learn terminology that often demands my discipline to follow through in order to obtain that understanding. (I think a period somewhere in that sentence would be appropriate).

I also understand that the abundance of material written in proximity to my view would probably not change the viewpoint of the greater number of those who have posted on this thread, so be it.

As such, carry on Gentlemen

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 07:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Barry

When you die you enter the same nothingness you were in before you were born. That state didn't inconvenience me in the slightest before I was born and it won't after I am gone. The mental "energy" is organic activity in your brain and it dies when the brain dies.


How can you make these statements with any certainty?

Your entire view on these matters is based on scientific evidence. Yet science never claims to know the truth. We label things as true because their tests give consistent results. But the brain is poorly understood. We have no explanation for consciousness or the presence of a soul or even the spiritual feeling you feel about evolution. Like the old mariner's maps during the time of Columnbus, this is terra icognito. Or like central africa until Livingston.

Moreoever, truth can change with time. As time moves forward our understanding can change. It's my understanding that Newtonian physics was found to not be the complete truth about matter by the 20th century.

So how can you say with any certainty that consciousness comes from nothing and goes back to nothing. You can say that because with the present knowledge we have no explanation.

If the best that science can do to explain BajaGringo's near death experiences is that neurotransmission occured in certain parts of the brain in a certain order then we really have a long way to go. Don't you think?

If the theists can be criticized for claiming to know the absolute truth through a book then it seems to me that scientists can be criticized for claiming truth based upon temporal data.


[Edited on 6-13-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Igor I make those statements not as certainties, but as the most likely conclusion based upon our accumulated knowledge of the neurophysiology of the brain and what I know about biology. Of all of the wishful-thinking afterlife theories I have heard in my lifetime, my arguments for souls and afterlives make the most sense to me. It all happens in the brain. I have no fear of normal biological processes, and I am completely comfortable, when my time comes, in entering into the same nothingness I was in before I was born.

Osprey - 6-13-2012 at 07:34 AM

If you don't mind; a perfect place to rerun this.

Life After Life
Gerald Francis was killed instantly. He had lived a full forty one years. His life ended suddenly, tragically when his small private plane hit the ground at almost 300 MPH. Before you mourn for this stranger I will inform you that he had been a good Christian, a practicing Catholic and his soul went right to heaven, as promised, the very instant his heart stopped pumping.

His mother, Bernice Francis, had died four months before Gerald’s sudden departure. She had been in poor health for a very long time and finally succumbed to the cancer that had invaded her intestinal organs. Gerald was by her side when she passed away. It saddened him to see her wasting away and he was somehow relieved to know she was on her way to the Great Reward Beyond.

When Gerald popped into heaven there were no pearly gates, just tree lined paths and a few pedestrians. He singled out a man near the side of the path.

“Hi, I’m Gerald Francis. I just got here. I need to find my Mom. Do you know who might know, where I can ask?”

The tall, thin man said “Maybe I can help. What’s her full name? I need her age, her date of birth and when and where she died.”

After Gerald did the math on her birth date he gave the man the information he requested.

“She’s down that way. Just keep walking down this pathway in that direction. You’ll see lots of big buildings. Look for the hospital. She’s in the hospital.”

“Hospital? There are hospitals here? Here in heaven? Why would there be hospitals?”

The thin one spoke “She was sick. She died of her sickness, she needs care.”

“When she died, when she got here, didn’t God make her whole again, make her young and healthy, like she was when she was just a girl?”

“God promised Everlasting Life. He didn’t promise that one could relive the life they had. What kind of menu would you supply for Eternity? Would you like God to reform your mother to suit your picture of her as young, healthy and happy? How about her picture of that? Perhaps you would like God to make her prettier, smarter than she was. Would you like her taller, straighter teeth perhaps? If a newborn baby dies, how would you like the child to spend Eternity? As a teen, an old man or as a babe? Your mother will live forever. Is that not enough?”

An old man using a walker passed close to the two men and addressed himself to Gerald.

“You didn’t think it through did you? The heaven thing, the Everlasting Life thing, you didn’t give it a lot of thought did you? Well, neither did I. Practically wore out my old knees trying to make sure I got here. Don’t know if I thought I’d be playing basketball or running or what but I didn’t expect this. I just didn’t think it through.”

Gerald addressed the tall one “What about my soul, my Mom’s soul?”

“You are your soul. It’s your essence, your body is a home for, a storage place, a transport vehicle for your spiritual essence. Would you rather not have a body? Would you rather spend eternity as an amorphous vapor of spiritual energy, drifting among the heavenly clouds, unseen and unseeing? I think not. Life after death should mimic corporeal life.”

“Who are you? How do you know all this? What’s your name?”

The tall man speaks “I’m what you call an angel. My name is Gabe.”

“Were you ever alive?”

“I was, I am, in the hearts and minds of every believer.”
Gerald grows bolder “Well, this was not what I expected. A feel cheated, I....”


“Measure your words Gerald. I know you. I know your history, the depth and breadth of your religiosity, your spiritual successes and failures, your immorality, your occasional inhumanity. Gerald, you are very lucky to be here. You are here because of your mother. Her love for you is complete, almost Devine. Her reward is not complete without you by her side. The mechanic for your airplane, Bob Stoltz, Jr. was having a bad day and replaced your gas lines with those having a larger diameter. Nothing remains of the lines to bring the FAA investigators back to him for questioning.
Think of it like this: it could have gone the other way.
Chalk it up to, your mother needs you.”

Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 07:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey

“God promised Everlasting Life. He didn’t promise that one could relive the life they had. .....



Excellent Jorge. It's just amazing how fiction can often reveal the truth better than stating it outright.

Anway... The above quote reminded me of my experience with dad when his time came. We were in church at the time, waiting for the service to start. In attempt to console me the parish priest walks up and says.

"Don't worry. You know that everyone in heaven is 31 years old. That was the age at which Christ died and we all become that age. That is your father's age now".

Well, my mouth just dropped. I was stupified. Suddenly it all came back to me. The reasons I had turned my back to the church as a late teen. How could I do otherwise.

Iflyfish - 6-13-2012 at 09:03 AM

Great story birdman! Much to be said about parables and short stories when pondering these matters eh?! (I gratuitously threw in the eh?! for our Canadian cousins). Is this one of the missing chapters of the bible? It seems to explain a lot.

Does the author require strict obedience and worship of Gerald?

If I am going in my current state of decrepitude I hope it is at least warm there.

Iflyfish

Osprey - 6-13-2012 at 09:57 AM

Thanks Flyguy, I could have been a great parable writer but the Vanna White thing kicked in every time I got the urge to research >> could not even remember enough to google up good stuff from AAEsops or EASSops or Esasops (the guy with the crows and the grapes) or was that the termites and the aaaaardvarks?.

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 10:06 AM

Nice story Jorge. I like those type of sweet "Pearly Gate" stories as well as the next person. I even wrote one once after the loss of a dear friend:

To Jim Bailey...
Where are you old friend?
Now that you know the answer to the unanswerable question, where are you?
Are you out at the edge of the universe, having a close look at the stars we used to see... Lying on our backs in the sand, late at night...
On a Baja beach?
Or are you on short final to one six right at Van Nuys?
Or on top, southwest bound at nine point five?
Or feeling the smooth surface of the throttles in three zero sierra delta, that old plane we loved? Are you tipping one with old Mike at that little corner bar at 94th?
(Isn’t that where we met?)
Is there a white light?
Are you looking over Shawna’s shoulder?
Jeez you were proud of her...
For good reason.
Are you in Diamond City, with Patty and all your friends in Lee’s living room, watching the river... And listening to their mellow sounds?
Or are you here with me...
I think so; I feel your presence...
I always will.
Or are you everywhere?
Where are you old friend?

Osprey - 6-13-2012 at 10:47 AM

Ken, I don't feel your friend around here. He could be here. I can only hope, since he was so deserving, that he's here in spirit and is with me now on the patio, under the mister, laughing while holding his hand over his Bloody Mary to keep out most of the spray -- no way to know if The Eagles oldies put his new-old entity in the same place I'm at (wet hair and all).

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Ken, I don't feel your friend around here. He could be here. I can only hope, since he was so deserving, that he's here in spirit and is with me now on the patio, under the mister, laughing while holding his hand over his Bloody Mary to keep out most of the spray -- no way to know if The Eagles oldies put his new-old entity in the same place I'm at (wet hair and all).


You are a true gem Jorge. Glad you are a friend!

vgabndo - 6-13-2012 at 01:26 PM

From paranewbi:

"For myself, I don't believe I have portrayed any sense of being ‘cross’ with the inflexible stance of those who do not share my faith."

To describe the scientific side of the myth/science question to be inflexible is perhaps more intellectually insulting than to be thought of as "cross". That's OK, your demographic holds rapists and child molesters in higher regard than atheists!

Your circular argument is inflexible. Your nit-picking over the context of a horrid quote from a collection of Bronze Age myths with extremely poor attribution is almost amusing considering that your most important evidence for the supernatural creation of everything got heliocentricity wrong.

The likelihood that you have no present choice over your path at this point, and that your compass will continue to point in a direction different from science seems pretty well explained in the Sam Harris link I shared. It would have been very bad luck had all of your genetics, and up-bringing led you to become a terrible sociopath. If your Dad was in prison and your Mom a junkie, you might not have had the will to resist a life of crime. I am free of the mind-restricting elements of a belief in the supernatural; I think it was bad luck that you likely didn't really get a choice to know what I know, and to be able to accept and use any and all new data that comes my way. At our house, there was no school on Sunday for 5 year olds that explained everything once and for all. Still isn't!

I realize I'm projecting some stuff on you here, and you can tell me if in fact your belief in the supernatural came to you before or after your age of reason, say, mid 20's.:?:

Barry A. - 6-13-2012 at 02:10 PM

Wow, you athiests are a fiesty, judgemental bunch----------I bet that if you all got together you might embark on an actual war against all those crazy "faith-based" fools-------like maybe a crusade? :wow:

This whole thread is scary------------to me at least--------since I am caught in the middle. :yes:

Barry

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 02:12 PM

vgabndo;

The inflexibility is not in the content of “the scientific side of the myth/science question", it is in the ascription of describing a point of view contrary to yours as such, when some would read into the declaring side to appear just as much so.

I do not see the Biblical decision as inflexible where to ME it describes choice as freely given and as all choices have consequences, those consequences are just part of the choice, even in the choice to choose as you have. Unless the proposition is that there is NOT such a thing as free will to choose. That is another subject.

In that I do not see the Biblical decision to be without choice I did not correlate the inflexibility application to such and took it as a commentary on my own personal attitude. I do not expect that you have no choice in what you choose but I do have a notion that you would not allow the choice of the Biblical content which takes my free will away...that is the inflexibility I have perceived in the postings and protestations.

I have not protested your or any others individual point of view and in fact just stated prior to this that I find them interesting. It was you who said I and another were inflexible when neither of us have described your and others views as 'harmful', 'most dangerous', 'brainwashed', 'horrid quote' associated with human destruction, child abuse or other descriptions that degenerate a debate to a level I wish not to engage in.

If I was as intolerable and inflexible as you say I am, I would probably have used such low attacks as those used as above to reflect that. Of course this is what turns me off to New Atheist mindset as I find this common in the dialect of Dr. Harrison and others (as here in this thread).

And for the record, I really don't desire to follow any scientific path because I do see a growing body of secular scientists who recognize a conclusion of a creator or at least intelligent design(er).

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 02:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paranewbi
And for the record, I really don't desire to follow any scientific path because I do see a growing body of secular scientists who recognize a conclusion of a creator or at least intelligent design(er).


paranewbi
If you can, please cite some specific examples to support this statement.

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 02:28 PM

“I realize I'm projecting some stuff on you here, and you can tell me if in fact your belief in the supernatural came to you before or after your age of reason, say, mid 20's”

This is humorous in that it is another example of how some would frame a seemingly intelligent premise when it is a poor construct of enquiry. A reasonable person can observe that to answer the end question I would have to acquiesce to the declaration that I believe in ‘the supernatural’. This is how a New Atheist approaches a debate when wishing to engage someone on their grounds and then gets aggressive when the person refuses to be drawn in.

This is why I get bored.

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 02:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Wow, you athiests are a fiesty, judgemental bunch----------I bet that if you all got together you might embark on an actual war against all those crazy "faith-based" fools-------like maybe a crusade? :wow:

This whole thread is scary------------to me at least--------since I am caught in the middle. :yes:

Barry


We are Barry!! How outrageous! Actually wanting evidence for stuff. Where will it all lead?? :)

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 02:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paranewbi
This is humorous in that it is another example of how some would frame a seemingly intelligent premise when it is a poor construct of enquiry.


WTF??? Forgive me paranewbi, and I know you will because you are so loving and forgiving, but you are speaking in tongues.

Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 03:00 PM

Barry,

Those atheists must be right about that absence of free will. I can't seem to stop coming back to this thread.

:lol::lol::lol:

By the way, paranewbi, your writing style is very difficult to follow. Just say things more plainly.

DENNIS - 6-13-2012 at 03:14 PM

OK....I think it's about time we heard from Skeet. You philosophers are just going in circles and crying for guidance...:lol:

Barry A. - 6-13-2012 at 03:29 PM

Well, I am not Skeet!! but here goes----------

I just watched on the Net the 43 min. presentation by Stephen Hawkin's "Does God exist?" (or something like that)--------------I watched it very closely---------------I listened intently-----------and I essentially have no idea what he was talking about! "Before the BIG BANG there was NOTHING----------". Ahhhh, ok (I guess), he did say it, but I cannot get my head around THAT!!!

We have a problem here. If we don't understand it, how can we cynical-types ever come to accept it? The "God thing"
is easier to accept than -------NOTHING--------it seems to me.

But then who am I to argue with Stephen Hawkin, and even larger, who can argue with -------NOTHING???????? (no time, no space, no energy---------NOTHING)

(sigh)

Barry

comitan - 6-13-2012 at 03:30 PM

Well consider this, isn't it all about a persons comfort zone. If a person is comfortable being religious, or comfortable being an atheist, or Buddist that should suffice. All this discussion about where we came from or where we will end up in the end nobody I mean nobody knows, just accept it.

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 03:43 PM

Comitan;
I concur, and the end result is that knowing that no one can know as you put it, faith intercedes.

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 03:53 PM

Ok Ken;

Maybe more familiar to you...
It is stated as a "So Ken, when did you stop beating your wife"?
The question implies you are a wife beater, much as the question to me implied I believe in 'the supernatural'.

This is a form of 'baiting' the respondent. It perhaps was more recognizable to some than others, so I pointed this tactic out. It was easily recognizable to me from my studies and expriance in debate form as the tactic it is. Just as my level of dialect is conducive to respecting those I debate with, in my other experiances, although perhaps not on this forum.

comitan - 6-13-2012 at 04:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paranewbi
Comitan;
I concur, and the end result is that knowing that no one can know as you put it, faith intercedes.


paranewby. no you didn't concur, you added faith intercedes, sir it ends with not knowing accept that or you don't concur!!!

wessongroup - 6-13-2012 at 04:13 PM

Barry A. ... had much the same take on Stephen Hawkin's thought's about what came before the "Big Bang" ...

The "nothing" is a bit difficult to get my arms around too ...

The only "nothingness" I've encountered previously, was in a movie my son watch when young ... "The Endless Story" ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NeverEnding_Story_(film)

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 04:15 PM

So Comitan...not knowing something yet basing a conclusion on an observable condition and drawing a hypothesis from it, cannot allow one to infer that it is a possibillity? Then to apply that possibillity to an active state takes faith that it benefits the application.

If not, then what is faith? Exactly the basis of application of uncertainty to an action...sitting in a chair requires some faith based on an observable condition called familiarity (with the previous observance of integrity in the material and design)

I DONT REALLY KNOW HOW TO STATE THAT IN ANY OTHER WAY EXCUSE MY WORDINESS! :)

Barry A. - 6-13-2012 at 04:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Barry A. ... had much the same take on Stephen Hawkin's thought's about what came before the "Big Bang" ...

The "nothing" is a bit difficult to get my arms around too ...

The only "nothingness" I've encountered previously, was in a movie my son watch when young ... "The Endless Story" ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NeverEnding_Story_(film)


I did not watch "The Endless Story" when I was young (or ever), but I was in heaven watching "The Endless Summer" in Mission Beach in the mid-'50's when it first came out---------to me, that was the film to end all films, and everything has been going downhill since. THAT was our personal BIG BANG, and believe me there was no "nothingness" about THAT!! THAT was very real!!!!

(but I don't discount the theory of the "real" BIG BANG, just don't understand it very well------it was the "quantum physics" that did me in-----a math thing) (now as for the "NOTHING"---------that I have real problems with------who wants to comtemplate NOTHING??)

Barry

David K - 6-13-2012 at 04:37 PM

Mid 50's? Are you talking about the epic surfing the world film?





The Endless Summer is a seminal 1966 surf movie.

Director Bruce Brown follows two surfers, Mike Hynson and Robert August, on a surfing trip around the world. Despite the balmy climate of their native California, cold ocean currents make local beaches inhospitable during the winter. They travel to the coasts of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Tahiti and Hawaii in a quest for new surf spots and introduce locals to the sport. Other important surfers of the time, such as Miki Dora, Eugene Harris, Phil Edwards and Butch Van Artsdalen, also appear.

[Edited on 6-13-2012 by David K]

comitan - 6-13-2012 at 04:39 PM

Comitan has no faith in the unknown, if a person wants to conjecture what may be, that's no problem for me. I derive comfort in who I am how I have lived my life, how I have treated other people (I've lived be the golden rule)(tried) This because of the way I am, not in preparation for something in the possible afterlife. Now you know!!!!!!

Faith is....

thebajarunner - 6-13-2012 at 04:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paranewbi
So Comitan...not knowing something yet basing a conclusion on an observable condition and drawing a hypothesis from it, cannot allow one to infer that it is a possibillity? Then to apply that possibillity to an active state takes faith that it benefits the application.

If not, then what is faith? Exactly the basis of application of uncertainty to an action...sitting in a chair requires some faith based on an observable condition called familiarity (with the previous observance of integrity in the material and design)

I DONT REALLY KNOW HOW TO STATE THAT IN ANY OTHER WAY EXCUSE MY WORDINESS! :)


A.W. Tozer said it best:

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for,
and certain of what we do not see"

Hard to argue with that, and that is what I live by,
and quite nicely, too, I might add.

Barry A. - 6-13-2012 at 04:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mid 50's? Are you talking about the epic surfing the world film?





The Endless Summer is a seminal 1966 surf movie.

Director Bruce Brown follows two surfers, Mike Hynson and Robert August, on a surfing trip around the world. Despite the balmy climate of their native California, cold ocean currents make local beaches inhospitable during the winter. They travel to the coasts of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Tahiti and Hawaii in a quest for new surf spots and introduce locals to the sport. Other important surfers of the time, such as Miki Dora, Eugene Harris, Phil Edwards and Butch Van Artsdalen, also appear.

[Edited on 6-13-2012 by David K]


Hmmmmmmmm, 1966 eh??? Well, David, things are a bit misty that far back in my brain--------wow, I thought I was over serious surfing by then (I was 27 in '66)--------guess not.

Barry

David K - 6-13-2012 at 04:48 PM

It's okay Barry... what's 10 years when you are as old as us? :wow:;D

paranewbi - 6-13-2012 at 04:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
Comitan has no faith in the unknown, if a person wants to conjecture what may be, that's no problem for me. I derive comfort in who I am how I have lived my life, how I have treated other people (I've lived be the golden rule)(tried) This because of the way I am, not in preparation for something in the possible afterlife. Now you know!!!!!!


And having observed your statement I have a degree of faith that you shall continue doing just that. Or shouldn't I?:light:

comitan - 6-13-2012 at 05:00 PM

paranewbi That kind of faith is a sure thing.

Mexitron - 6-13-2012 at 05:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Harris' latest book "Free Will" makes a compelling case that there is no such thing as free will. David Eagleman, in his book "Incognito", approaches it from a somewhat different direction but comes to the same conclusion. As to "souls", no, there is no such thing. We are our physical bodies, no more, no less. I am completely comfortable with that.

[Edited on 6-13-2012 by Ken Bondy]


My old friend Myron Smith was at a lecture by Huston Smith years ago...Huston used the word soul several times before Myron spoke up and said ----isn't "spirit" a better way to describe it, since spirit conveys the sense of omnipresence that we would all go back to after death?

BTW Ken---have you ever read the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 05:21 PM

Ken,

As you can see from this clip not everyone finds your outlook to be so rosy.

:lol::lol::lol:



Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 05:41 PM

Removing image.

Nothing to do with bajarunner. A man that has contributed nothing to this thread. Seldom does.


[Edited on 6-14-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

Iflyfish - 6-13-2012 at 06:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
Well consider this, isn't it all about a persons comfort zone. If a person is comfortable being religious, or comfortable being an atheist, or Buddist that should suffice. All this discussion about where we came from or where we will end up in the end nobody I mean nobody knows, just accept it.


You raise a good point here comitan. Religious belief does not require proof.

I think we have had a pretty good discussion between atheists and theists, from the West and the East. We have heard little from the agnostic perspective, the point of view that none of this is knowable. You have expressed that perspective in your post.

I have said in a prior post that Theists and Atheists are all theists in the sense that they are adamantly in the ground of theism. The Agnostic says that these are unanswerable questions, that there is no way of knowing, A-gnosis, not knowing.

I believe that some of us are raised with religion or have some sort of conversion experience then have to deal with this in some way and there are a limited number of ways of integrating this. One way is dualism, God above/Man below and an a chasm that man tries to resolve by baptism, faith, belief, the Haj, good works denunciation of the body etc. To the non - dualist Man is part of an entire field and as part of it all there is no chasm between God/Man, as they exist in a field of consciousness, there is no heaven and hell, other than perhaps that which we create here on earth.

The agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism because of their belief that there is no knowing.

These are the main ways that people experience this field of religion and religious thought.

To the agnostic discussions like this are nonsense and they believe that there is no way of knowing or answering these questions.

I appreciate the perspectives of all who have posted here. Your posts have offered us a way to learn more about this age old dilemma for humans which Norman O Brown so eloquently called a god that chits.

The person who has had a "true conversion experience" or has known since their youth that there is a god and sees evidence of it in their lives will not be convinced by logic to change their deeply held beliefs. To the atheist, who uses logic and science to inform their thinking, the idea of forming a conclusion based solely on a man written text that says it is the truth without any tangible, provable evidence to back up the claim, which is seen as circular arguing, and is self contradictory flies in the face of their conclusion about how the world really works.

I am proud of Nomads for giving this topic a comprehensive airing. There is of course no resolution to these issues, we can only read and hopefully learn from our dialogue and appreciate the depth of sincerity and power of the emotions that underlie these perspectives. I appreciate the civility of the dialogue and the range of viewpoints expressed here. It is very hard to discuss this topic with out very profound feelings and indeed wounds emerging.

To some religious belief is the underpinning of their lives, it gives purpose and meaning to their lives, it helps them understand why they are on this earth and how they are to comport themselves while here and they point to the good that religion has done for them and for mankind. Others have been abused in the name of religion and have equally powerful experiences of the harm that can be done in the name of religion and cite the horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion. These powerful experiences engender strong feelings and it is hard to remain civil and rational when ones fundamental knowing is challenged.

Thanks comitan for sharing the agnostic perspective and I believe you are right in counseling acceptance of these differing perspectives, we all do after all inhabit this forum, share our love of baja, and share this planet together.

Iflyfish

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 06:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by IflyfishYou raise a good point here comitan. Religious belief does not require proof.


Religious belief requires the absence of proof, by definition. Religious belief requires faith, and faith is belief without evidence.

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 06:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MexitronBTW Ken---have you ever read the Tibetan Book of the Dead?


I have not, Mexitron. Tell me a bit about it.

Ken, you are correct

thebajarunner - 6-13-2012 at 06:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by IflyfishYou raise a good point here comitan. Religious belief does not require proof.


Religious belief requires the absence of proof, by definition. Religious belief requires faith, and faith is belief without evidence.


Didn't I just post that?
It sort of got lost in the "stuff" that followed

A.W. Tozer said it best:

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for,
and certain of what we do not see"

Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 07:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by IflyfishYou raise a good point here comitan. Religious belief does not require proof.


Religious belief requires the absence of proof, by definition. Religious belief requires faith, and faith is belief without evidence.


Wasn't it William James who claimed that religion and science have faith in common. Every scientific conclusion requires a faith in it's truth just like religion. Without faith it's just data.

But, I am more interested in something else, Ken.

Why did you choose atheism over agnosticism?

I have an idea but would be interested in your decision process.

[Edited on 6-14-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 07:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack JoeBut, I am more interested in something else, Ken.

Why did you choose atheism over agnosticism?

I have an idea but would be interested in your decision process.

[Edited on 6-14-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Igor I guess it may have started as agnosticism (doubt) when I was a kid, but it changed to atheism when I realized that if something is proclaimed to be true for centuries, but has not a shred of evidence for being true, it is most likely false. So atheism is the most rational answer to the question of god's existence.

Ken Bondy - 6-13-2012 at 07:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack JoeBut, I am more interested in something else, Ken.

Why did you choose atheism over agnosticism?

I have an idea but would be interested in your decision process.

[Edited on 6-14-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Igor it may have started briefly as agnosticism (doubt) when I was a kid, but it changed to atheism when I realized that if something is proclaimed to be true for centuries, but has not a shred of evidence for being true, it is most likely false. So atheism is the most rational answer to the question of god's existence.


Igor permit me to expand on that a bit. The world behaves pretty much as you would expect it to behave without the existence of some supernatural "god" who influences it. Objects and materials, including biological materials and living organisms, behave in accordance with natural laws which are discoverable, understandable, and reproducible. We continue to learn more and more about those natural laws and they continue to explain more and more about the things we see in the world and in the universe, leaving less and less need for centuries-old religious mythology to explain anything. Religion, and belief in supernatural gods, resides in that ever-shrinking part of existence which has not yet been explained by science. The world contains great beauty, great ugliness, great compassion, and great cruelty. None of what happens in the world seems to be guided by any supernatural force, particularly one that is loving, intelligent, or benevolent. If there is some supernatural "higher power" out there it either does not care or it is impotent. Thus I have no doubts about the existence of any supernatural "gods"; in my opinion they simply don't exist. There is no room for doubt.

Skipjack Joe - 6-13-2012 at 08:49 PM

If you're so sure, Ken, why did you write this. This doesn't sound like someone who believes in nothingness. This sounds like the rest of us - a man who isn't sure.
Quote:

To Jim Bailey...
Where are you old friend?
Now that you know the answer to the unanswerable question, where are you?
Are you out at the edge of the universe, having a close look at the stars we used to see... Lying on our backs in the sand, late at night...
On a Baja beach?
Or are you on short final to one six right at Van Nuys?
Or on top, southwest bound at nine point five?
Or feeling the smooth surface of the throttles in three zero sierra delta, that old plane we loved? Are you tipping one with old Mike at that little corner bar at 94th?

Iflyfish - 6-13-2012 at 09:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by paranewbi
So Comitan...not knowing something yet basing a conclusion on an observable condition and drawing a hypothesis from it, cannot allow one to infer that it is a possibillity? Then to apply that possibillity to an active state takes faith that it benefits the application.

If not, then what is faith? Exactly the basis of application of uncertainty to an action...sitting in a chair requires some faith based on an observable condition called familiarity (with the previous observance of integrity in the material and design)

I DONT REALLY KNOW HOW TO STATE THAT IN ANY OTHER WAY EXCUSE MY WORDINESS! :)


Brilliant!! I love how you dance thru this stuff. You have a very facile mind indeed. I think that Ken and others in some ways diminishes your rhetorical skill by saying that your logic is circular. Here it it tangential and really impressive, I mean it!! It is this very obfuscation that I believe holds perishers glued to their seats on Sunday mornings while I beat them to the Sunday Brunch. When I learned the art of Hypnosis my mentor told me that we all get hypnotized, we should just be careful who we choose to do the job.

comitan posited that you cannot know the truth about the existence of god. (Correct me if I am wrong comitan)
“All this discussion about where we came from or where we will end up in the end nobody I mean nobody knows, just accept it.”

To which you respond:
“I concur, and the end result is that knowing that no one can know as you put it, faith intercedes.

Comitan responds:
“paranewby. no you didn't concur, you added faith intercedes, sir it ends with not knowing accept that or you don't concur!!!”

You wrote in response:
"So Comitan...not knowing something yet basing a conclusion on an observable condition and drawing a hypothesis from it, cannot allow one to infer that it is a possibillity? Then to apply that possibillity to an active state takes faith that it benefits the application."

comitan's position: “I mean nobody knows” (about whether god exists or not”* my summary.)

Your rebuttal: “not knowing something yet basing a conclusion on an observable condition and drawing a hypothesis from it, cannot allow one to infer that it is a possibillity? Then to apply that possibillity to an active state takes faith that it benefits the application."

My analysis of your rebuttal:
There is no observable condition that one could call god, soul, spirit etc. An Agnostic does not refute the existence of god, he/she just posits that this is unknowable. It is not a matter of faith to say that which is unobservable is unknowable, it is a statement about the ephemeral and unquantifiable nature of those “things” called “soul”, “spirit” or “god”. We have linear accelerators, to validate our hypothesis that sub atomic particles exist. There is no linear accelerator for the soul, spirit, angels or god though some have postulated that there must be a biological soul that exists in the heart or more lately the brain, yet none has been found.

You provide a rhetorically beautiful refutation even though it is fallacious. I think that Ken and others have discounted your great skills, which I admire. Really, I do admire your rhetorical skill though I think your soundest argument rests with a hypothesis that one only knows the existence of god thru experience of his/her presence. This argument is very hard to refute. I think you should stay on more solid ground with the atheists and agnostics.

I very much appreciate your sharing your perspective and hanging in with this discussion, I think that there is much to learn and you are providing a very powerful advocacy for theism. I appreciate your doing so. I realize that it is a daunting task given that it is primarily the atheists who have been taking you on. Now you have an Agnostic to deal with. Big agenda and in my view you are holding up well in the fray. I for one would love to pop a Tecate or Pacifico with you one day over the evening camp fire!

Iflyfish

Mexitron - 6-13-2012 at 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
Quote:
Originally posted by MexitronBTW Ken---have you ever read the Tibetan Book of the Dead?


I have not, Mexitron. Tell me a bit about it.


An ancient text that goes through the phases of consciousness from death to the next rebirth..........a b-tch to read but intriguing what the Tibetans have accomplished in this arena. So this would be in support of something besides non-existence after we die. I guess I put some weight on what the Tibetans say although to call it truth I would have to witness it and the only intuition in the reincarnation realm that I could even hazard a guess to would be a cat I had years ago---but he wasn't telling! :lol: To complicate matters, as I interpret reincarnation its a rebirth of your desires, not your present day self. Like a wave through water, as it were. Anyway, its interesting information to cogitate.

Osprey - 6-14-2012 at 06:27 AM

Flyguy, you have an uncanny knack of taking ugly little pieces of disparate jawjacking and bringing them together to form a teddy bear of an idea built by people who can't agree on the day of the week.

Please allow me to keep my long held hatreds and bias against some of your campfire buddies on the board (I'd rather have a nightcap with John Wayne Gacy than a share a Pacifico with some of them).

I spend a lot of time unbundling while you are bringing all this palaver to a convenient accord about some things talked about at this here marshmallow roast.

Here's a sample of my need for separation.

United, International, Amalgamated League and Cooperative


When I see and hear the “talking heads” on CNN and other news services using the phrase International Community I wonder who they’re talking about. Is it a small neighborhood like the Olympic Villages? Maybe they don’t mean a place, exactly, maybe just some countries with identical goals. Then I get lost again because I can’t really conceive a situation where Gambia and Portugal could be in accord about anything.

United Nations strikes another chord of disharmony. Nations do not unite; they draw up temporary pacts to start or prevent wars. It is only with the greatest of difficulty that individual states can agree to sign on to alliances to form Countries. The ink on the document is usually still wet when the states begin to bicker about their differences with each other and with the alliance.

How about other communities? What about the Scientific Community? The Scientific Community must be the city of Prague or Antwerp or perhaps Alamogordo. If it is not a place, then I submit it does not exist – there can never be unanimity between sciences; the very thought is a non-sequitur.

What of talk about United Nations, Scientific Community, Global Warming? May I please tie Global to International? May I take the opportunity to infer that it might be very difficult for people to agree on things they don’t understand or things that are in a state of uncertain flux? (I almost wrote {Can we agree that……} but I caught myself just in time.)

Thanks to the Computer Age we now have lots of data. That means we have a lot more things about which we can develop independent thought – a lot more things we can disagree about. There is no end to how disagreeable we can be now that we have all this unbundled data. Why, I’m beginning to have doubts about tons of things I thought were rock solid; words like indisputable and immutable crumble in my mouth when I think of the many ways I could disagree about the premise, whatever it might be.

It is only now that I begin to have the utmost admiration for my old uncle Earl. I thought he was crazy as a loon when I saw him following animals around for no apparent reason. Now I see that he could look into our data filled, dubious future; that he felt the need to find exactitude in a world of murky uncertainty – now I know why he followed the bear into the woods – so he could say, without fear of contradiction, just where it had shat in the buckwheat.

Ken Bondy - 6-14-2012 at 06:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
If you're so sure, Ken, why did you write this. This doesn't sound like someone who believes in nothingness. This sounds like the rest of us - a man who isn't sure.


Quote:

To Jim Bailey...
Where are you old friend?
Now that you know the answer to the unanswerable question, where are you?
Are you out at the edge of the universe, having a close look at the stars we used to see... Lying on our backs in the sand, late at night...
On a Baja beach?
Or are you on short final to one six right at Van Nuys?
Or on top, southwest bound at nine point five?
Or feeling the smooth surface of the throttles in three zero sierra delta, that old plane we loved? Are you tipping one with old Mike at that little corner bar at 94th?


Igor that was poetry, a tribute to a dear friend. I didn't really think that Jim was off checking out the stars at the edge of the universe; but it was nice to remember that we had often done that together lying in the sand late at night at San Francisquito. I was simply remembering things, in prose, that we had done when he was alive. I wasn't unsure in the slightest about the existence of gods and afterlives when I wrote that. I'll acknowledge a little wishful thinking....it would be nice to think that the things I wrote about Jim were really happening but I knew they were not.

comitan - 6-14-2012 at 07:01 AM

Rick

Very well said.

Thank you.

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 07:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by comitan
Rick

Very well said.

Thank you. [/quote

You said it with fewer words. I tend toward verbosity. You are welcome.

Iflyfish

Skipjack Joe - 6-14-2012 at 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thebajarunner
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Removing image.

Nothing to do with bajarunner. A man that has contributed nothing to this thread. Seldom does.


[Edited on 6-14-2012 by Skipjack Joe]


Just getting you to remove that raunchy and juvenile (or was it juvenile and raunchy??) pic was a big step up....
Too bad it had to get to that level IMO


You flatter yourself (not the first time).

Read the above post. I logged in to remove the image (primarily because it was a 'negative' hijack) and came across your remark. And if you don't believe that then we have little to talk about. Which is my preference, actually.

This is my last post on this matter. I'm not going to let your personal attacks derail what has been a good informative thread so far.

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
Flyguy, you have an uncanny knack of taking ugly little pieces of disparate jawjacking and bringing them together to form a teddy bear of an idea built by people who can't agree on the day of the week.

Please allow me to keep my long held hatreds and bias against some of your campfire buddies on the board (I'd rather have a nightcap with John Wayne Gacy than a share a Pacifico with some of them).

I spend a lot of time unbundling while you are bringing all this palaver to a convenient accord about some things talked about at this here marshmallow roast.

Here's a sample of my need for separation.

United, International, Amalgamated League and Cooperative


When I see and hear the “talking heads” on CNN and other news services using the phrase International Community I wonder who they’re talking about. Is it a small neighborhood like the Olympic Villages? Maybe they don’t mean a place, exactly, maybe just some countries with identical goals. Then I get lost again because I can’t really conceive a situation where Gambia and Portugal could be in accord about anything.

United Nations strikes another chord of disharmony. Nations do not unite; they draw up temporary pacts to start or prevent wars. It is only with the greatest of difficulty that individual states can agree to sign on to alliances to form Countries. The ink on the document is usually still wet when the states begin to bicker about their differences with each other and with the alliance.

How about other communities? What about the Scientific Community? The Scientific Community must be the city of Prague or Antwerp or perhaps Alamogordo. If it is not a place, then I submit it does not exist – there can never be unanimity between sciences; the very thought is a non-sequitur.

What of talk about United Nations, Scientific Community, Global Warming? May I please tie Global to International? May I take the opportunity to infer that it might be very difficult for people to agree on things they don’t understand or things that are in a state of uncertain flux? (I almost wrote {Can we agree that……} but I caught myself just in time.)

Thanks to the Computer Age we now have lots of data. That means we have a lot more things about which we can develop independent thought – a lot more things we can disagree about. There is no end to how disagreeable we can be now that we have all this unbundled data. Why, I’m beginning to have doubts about tons of things I thought were rock solid; words like indisputable and immutable crumble in my mouth when I think of the many ways I could disagree about the premise, whatever it might be.

It is only now that I begin to have the utmost admiration for my old uncle Earl. I thought he was crazy as a loon when I saw him following animals around for no apparent reason. Now I see that he could look into our data filled, dubious future; that he felt the need to find exactitude in a world of murky uncertainty – now I know why he followed the bear into the woods – so he could say, without fear of contradiction, just where it had shat in the buckwheat.


Thanks for the tilt of the hat to my attempts at diplomacy. I suspect it comes from both my family of origin issues as well as years on the job.

There is a place for diplomacy in the world, for people who carry a lexicon rather than a rifle. I mostly carry words though would never enter a bar fight armed solely with a bible concordance or dictionary. Like most guys I enjoy the occasional good scrap. I am getting a bit old for fisticuffs but have had my share of them in my youth.

I have used my rhetorical skills to get our of far more fights than I ever engaged in. I have only lost one pair of glasses to fisticuffs and learned quickly to set them down before engaging in the sweet science. I never felt good after a donnybrook as I hate both blood and pain. I readily admit to cowardliness and of course my recourse to the various ruses of linguistic acrobatics may be mostly due to that yellow streak that I occasionally see on my back reflected in the mirror after the morning shower.

You are right in challenging my use of the term community as it is indeed as my Anthropologist brother calls it "an ode to fictive relationships". This is not to say that fictive relationships are not important, they are indeed very important, as they can form the basis of a shared identity i.e. the errant uncle who is related to both of us who obtained some sort of fame in service of Her Majesty and therefore adds to our stature via association and relation to him, though we may not have indeed ever met him.

I have resorted to such devices in an apparently opaque ruse to attempt to retain civility in this dialogue. I am afraid that in this case one can like Dorothy clearly see the man behind the curtain.

So it's ok with me Osprey if you maintain your antipathy toward those who you abhor and John Wayne Gacy in my view would make a much better dinner companion than Jeffery Dahmer, who's taste was so bad he only had one single condiment in his larder and that was Heinz 57. Speaking of Heinz 57, I would say that this board is somewhat like Heinz 57, lots of tastes in that bottle.

Iflyfish

Skipjack Joe - 6-14-2012 at 09:51 AM

Has anyone changed their views on this matter at all? If not, why not?

I've been chewing on Harris' lecture on the absence of free will for several days now. Have to admit I don't like the taste of it. But ..... I suppose it's important to know what our foremost thinkers think.

oxxo - 6-14-2012 at 09:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)

Barry A. - 6-14-2012 at 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Has anyone changed their views on this matter at all? If not, why not?

I've been chewing on Harris' lecture on the absence of free will for several days now. Have to admit I don't like the taste of it. But ..... I suppose it's important to know what our foremost thinkers think.


I am still an Agnostic------mostly because I really don't care either way as it does not effect my life on a daily basis. It IS all interesting stuff, and fun to hear what others think, tho. Which ever "group" produced the "golden rules" is the one I owe thanks too.

Barry

shari - 6-14-2012 at 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
You are right in challenging my use of the term community as it is indeed as my Anthropologist brother calls it "an ode to fictive relationships". This is not to say that fictive relationships are not important, they are indeed very Iflyfish


exactly this topic has been tickling my mind the last few days... my fictive relationships with nomads... how rich and rewarding some are and how destructive and damaging others have been.

I suppose I'm still a loosey goosey at the end of the day.

as Skipjack mentioned there has been all kids of food for thought in this thread...I'm really enjoying it....now about that soul....maybe best discussed over a real campfire.

[Edited on 6-14-2012 by shari]

Skipjack Joe - 6-14-2012 at 11:40 AM

It's interesting how people get so concerned, emotional, and so worked up about global warming and yet remain far less interested in their eternal future. I guess because (a) it's unknowable and (b) you can't do anything about it anway.

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Has anyone changed their views on this matter at all? If not, why not?

I've been chewing on Harris' lecture on the absence of free will for several days now. Have to admit I don't like the taste of it. But ..... I suppose it's important to know what our foremost thinkers think.


Is solidifying ones views a change? Is learning more a change? Is understanding more a change? Is getting a bigger picture a change? If so then I have been washed in the waters of intelligent dialogue, as opposed to intelligent design, and have renewed faith in the intelligence, experience, humor and thoughtfulness of many of my fellow Nomads. The topics must be significant enough for this thread to have received over 10,000 hits, that's a lot of reading!!

If I indeed have the free will to make a choice, and I suspect that I do, since I decided to learn touch typing, I have chosen to stay open on the topic of free will. I have not watched the lecture that you have watched, not yet at least, though it is bookmarked. I have watched rats in Skinner boxes hit levers to receive both food and electric stimulation of their brains pleasure centers. I have also watched mice to go one way in a maze and not the other, which sure looks to me like choice. But I am open to a change in my perspective.

Iflyfish

Cypress - 6-14-2012 at 11:51 AM

It's all good! Who know's? This subject has been debated for hundreds of years, fought over by millions and there's no end in sight! The mystery of life, death, and the great unknown! The Torah? The Bible? The Koran? Hindus? Buddists? Fill-in-the-blank? As long as they're not imposing their belief system on me, they can believe whatever they want. ;D

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by shari
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
You are right in challenging my use of the term community as it is indeed as my Anthropologist brother calls it "an ode to fictive relationships". This is not to say that fictive relationships are not important, they are indeed very Iflyfish


exactly this topic has been tickling my mind the last few days... my fictive relationships with nomads... how rich and rewarding some are and how destructive and damaging others have been.

I suppose I'm still a loosey goosey at the end of the day.

as Skipjack mentioned there has been all kids of food for thought in this thread...I'm really enjoying it....now about that soul....maybe best discussed over a real campfire.

[Edited on 6-14-2012 by shari]


Put me in coach! I'm not too good at starting camp fires but the smoke seems to seek me out and I provide a great chimney. I also like scary stories around the fire.....ever seen Grim Prairie Tales?

Iflyfish

DianaT - 6-14-2012 at 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
It's interesting how people get so concerned, emotional, and so worked up about global warming and yet remain far less interested in their eternal future. I guess because (a) it's unknowable and (b) you can't do anything about it anway.


Good thought and I agree with your conclusion. It is all quite a mystery with many different ways to search for truth and/or spirituality as demonstrated in this thread. Is there an eternal future, for me is still a question and is what it is --- a mystery. I believe in the search as something that will last a lifetime.

On the other hand, something like global warming is a tangible subject.



[Edited on 6-14-2012 by DianaT]

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
It's all good! Who know's? This subject has been debated for hundreds of years, fought over by millions and there's no end in sight! The mystery of life, death, and the great unknown! The Torah? The Bible? The Koran? Hindus? Buddists? Fill-in-the-blank? As long as they're not imposing their belief system on me, they can believe whatever they want. ;D


"they can believe whatever they want."

That raises the question, do they have to believe what ever they want? Or maybe this is under the heading "Predestination" or "Free Will"?

Iflyfish

Iflyfish - 6-14-2012 at 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)


" can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical?"

Have you had your lunch??? Go wash your bowl.

As to Capt. Jack, I too have had what appeared to be hallucinations after too much Capt. Jack. Take it easy on the stuff.

Iflyfishswayingtothecaptjack

Cypress - 6-14-2012 at 12:01 PM

Global warming? :yes: That's a subject for debate with some solid "evidence". Pro? Con?:spingrin: How 'bout Voodoo?:lol:

[Edited on 6/14/2012 by Cypress]

Osprey - 6-15-2012 at 07:11 AM

One More Thing before this closes

Goodman

Somewhere in the world there is a man of virtue. To remind you he is hypothetical I will call him Goodman.

Goodman was born in Asia, grew up in a small house with two parents and two siblings. He went to school, learned his letters, found a trade, now raises his own family.

Goodman is only remarkable because he never found religion. His life has been ordinary (for the region and the time) but those who know him say he shines as a beacon in the night as one who lives in a virtuous way. That is to say that his humanity is grand and visible – that he is giving, caring, always helping his fellow man while seeking no personal gain, wealth, fame or fortune. He is without guile or hubris; in all of his life he has not displayed attributes one could relate to the sins of religious doctrine.

Those devout followers of religions doubt such a man exists. They say that his Goodness could only be achieved by receiving some divine energy, guidance or association with formal religion. I will be his witness. He has never read a holy book, attended any religious service, joined others to pray, taken any vow, celebrated any rite of passage.

In Asia he is widely known. He has lived more than 80 years. Goodman does not fear death; he knows his time is near. He says his one and only regret is that he can stay no longer to help others. He has secretly hired two responsible young men from a nearby village to come to his home when they learn he has died, spirit his corpse away to a secluded place, build a huge fire and burn his body.

Millions pray for him. They pray that when he dies he will somehow, miraculously be permitted to enter, for time eternal, their various Nirvanas, Valhallas, Heavens --- that some divine intervention will take place opening the Holy Portal without his former knowledge of, devotion to their particular God or doctrine or deity. Millions of others scoff at those who pray, mock the very notion of a man without religion being admitted to Heaven. There are those who believe his Godlessness, a lack of devotion to their particular God, makes him a sinner no matter how he lived his life.

His family is beginning to fear the millions of Literalists who are passionate and unpredictable. They are the ones who damn Goodman for failure to follow the literal dogma of the core of their religion; arcane sacrificial offerings, the beating of his wife and children, self-mutilation, self-flagellation, purgings and crusades, wars and exorcisms, pogroms and inquisitions. Some Literalists acquiesce to the notion that Goodman had no knowledge of sacred text and testimony and for that reason his family should not be harmed.




What of his mortal body? What should be done with that? What about his funeral? He admits he is Godless; perhaps something should be done to see that his remains never enter a sacred place. Perhaps they should be disposed of completely as though he had never lived. Is there not some hidden danger here that he could be martyred? How powerful might be a force, a group that rallies behind a Godless hero? Is it not possible that there are those who might invent a new God to explain his holy behavior? His goodness could make a mockery of those who are overflowing with piety but lack decency and good will.

Has no one investigated this man? A single failing might be discovered to mollify the Literalists, to place him firmly with unholy agnostics and infidels whose sins and atrocities are daily visible in Asia.

Goodman died in the middle of the night. When his hirelings came to his house they found it empty. The whereabouts of his corpse is a mystery that will last through the ages. His family has vanished like the wind.

Now there is rumor of another Goodman in a town to the south. While there remains great unrest across the land the people have hope that this new one is merely a pretender. Strangely the streets are full of people; the mosques, churches and temples are not.

woody with a view - 6-15-2012 at 07:14 AM

check back in three days, Osprey. maybe Goodman will rise.....:P

jbcoug - 6-15-2012 at 07:55 AM

I arrived late to this shindig, but I am certainly glad I didn't miss it completely. The intelligent, civil sharing here has me begging for more in other threads. Thank you all for sharing your beliefs and thoughts. There have been profound comments from every direction and I feel better able to understand those around me regardless of thier beliefs.It never hurts to better understand where people are coming from. Thanks again.

John

Skipjack Joe - 6-15-2012 at 09:45 AM

Osprey,

Your piece is just the sort of writing that Dostoyevsky was best at. You're on hallowed ground in my book.

There is a character in The Brothers Karamazov that remind me of Mr Goodman. I'm referring to the monk, Father Zosima. Father Zosima was known far and wide as the closest thing to a saint the people had. Men came from miles around to for advice on living the good life. He was not a miracle worker, however. He simply was a good man.

He was a very old man and eventually in the book he dies. Now, among russians a common belief is that if something is holy it will not decompose. My elders would tell me that if you brought water from the church that had been blessed during easter service it would never grow fallow. They encouraged me to test that.

And so the people waited. And sure enough within 3 days his body began to stink. You could smell it as you approached the building. There was great turmoil, regret, and almost anger amongst the people who now understood that this was NOT a holy man.

---------------------------------------------------------

There are other many fine stories of this nature by Dostoyevsky. A really good one, perhaps the best is

The Dream of a Ridiculous (sometimes tranlated as Superfluous) Man

It's a story of a man who is about to commit suicide due to a senseless world without God and falls asleep from the tremendous pressure of the act. He dreams he goes to another planet where there is nothing but goodness, a sort of garden of eden. I'[m not going to tell the rest. Short story. Maybe 80 pages.

[Edited on 6-15-2012 by Skipjack Joe]

Iflyfish - 6-15-2012 at 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jbcoug
I arrived late to this shindig, but I am certainly glad I didn't miss it completely. The intelligent, civil sharing here has me begging for more in other threads. Thank you all for sharing your beliefs and thoughts. There have been profound comments from every direction and I feel better able to understand those around me regardless of thier beliefs.It never hurts to better understand where people are coming from. Thanks again.

John


Thanks for throwing that log on the fire! I am glad to see that this thread has prompted some 12,000 hits, obviously the topic and dialogue has piqued the interest of many who lurk as well as post.

I too appreciate a well rounded airing of a subject like this with so many fine minds, hearts, humor and experiences to share in this group. We can all learn from this and I like you have a better understanding of different perspectives and that is in my view a very positive thing.

As you have so well said I too believe that there is inherent value in exploring ideas, learning, opening our minds to the perspectives of others. This is very hard to do when people revert to hyperbole, rigid, catastrophic thinking and personal attacks. It is refreshing in this age of polarized politics to be in the presence of adults who are able to deal with differences in a civil manner. My optimistic side hopes that one day we can as a society return to this sort of dialogue in the public domain, along with the art of cooperation and compromise, skills that got us out of the caves.

I think that it is rare these days for young people to see and participate as adults carry on thoughtful, civil dialogue like this in public arenas and I am pleased that to a large extent we have been able to accomplish this on this forum. Words and ideas matter as does modeling of productive social interaction.

I believe that this last point brings us this discussion back full circle to where it started, with Skeet leaving over an issue of his feeling betrayed by how his internet presence has been used for profit by Google, in his view by the moderator of this board. In my view the very human feeling of betrayal underlies his decision and I believe that other Nomads have left this forum because of the caustic nature of some of the responses to their posts. I hope that an additional value of this dialogue is to help us all realize that our words and how we present them matter.

Iflyfish

Koan

toneart - 6-15-2012 at 12:17 PM

After puzzling over this koan you have presented, I have realized that, metaphysically, it parallels the topic that has dominated this string; the answer is unknown! ...and now I can get about my daily life in the physical. The Zen of it is: the time spent on days of contemplation was not wasted. The brilliant, intricate, civil, engaging debate here has produced enlightenment, but alas...no conclusion.

Perhaps a tub rather than a shower was The Way.

Haiku:

The poet transcends
the wooden ladle scoops more water
Basho takes a bath-oh!
--Tony
Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)

Cisco - 6-15-2012 at 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
After puzzling over this koan you have presented, I have realized that, metaphysically, it parallels the topic that has dominated this string; the answer is unknown! ...and now I can get about my daily life in the physical. The Zen of it is: the time spent on days of contemplation was not wasted. The brilliant, intricate, civil, engaging debate here has produced enlightenment, but alas...no conclusion.

Perhaps a tub rather than a shower was The Way.

Haiku:

The poet transcends
the wooden ladle scoops more water
Basho takes a bath-oh!
--Tony

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)


Tony.

Try out "Why has Bodhi-Dharma left for the East?".

"Baraka" is another favorite of mine. Great beauty and not a spoken word.

Regards,

Cisco

SFandH - 6-15-2012 at 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
There are other many fine stories of this nature by Dostoyevsky. A really good one, perhaps the best is

The Dream of a Ridiculous (sometimes tranlated as Superfluous) Man


Found a copy and downloaded it. The files opens fine.

http://generation.feedbooks.com/book/2138.pdf

I love book suggestions. I come across books I never would have found otherwise.

[Edited on 6-15-2012 by SFandH]

toneart - 6-15-2012 at 02:29 PM

Thanks, Cisco!
I tried a free download for Bohdi but it wasn't successful. Maybe I will buy it from Amazon. I will also look for Baraka.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
After puzzling over this koan you have presented, I have realized that, metaphysically, it parallels the topic that has dominated this string; the answer is unknown! ...and now I can get about my daily life in the physical. The Zen of it is: the time spent on days of contemplation was not wasted. The brilliant, intricate, civil, engaging debate here has produced enlightenment, but alas...no conclusion.

Perhaps a tub rather than a shower was The Way.

Haiku:

The poet transcends
the wooden ladle scoops more water
Basho takes a bath-oh!
--Tony

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)


Tony.

Try out "Why has Bodhi-Dharma left for the East?".

"Baraka" is another favorite of mine. Great beauty and not a spoken word.

Regards,

Cisco

Cisco - 6-15-2012 at 02:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
Thanks, Cisco!
I tried a free download for Bohdi but it wasn't successful. Maybe I will buy it from Amazon. I will also look for Baraka.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cisco
Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
After puzzling over this koan you have presented, I have realized that, metaphysically, it parallels the topic that has dominated this string; the answer is unknown! ...and now I can get about my daily life in the physical. The Zen of it is: the time spent on days of contemplation was not wasted. The brilliant, intricate, civil, engaging debate here has produced enlightenment, but alas...no conclusion.

Perhaps a tub rather than a shower was The Way.

Haiku:

The poet transcends
the wooden ladle scoops more water
Basho takes a bath-oh!
--Tony

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
after the morning shower.


By your leave and pray tell, can you expound on the Zen of the morning shower versus the night shower in terms of the metaphysical? (Sorry, I'm reading the Patrick O'Brian anthology which has transported me bodily via transubstanciation back to early19th Century England. Forsooth, it is possible that I fancy myself the reincarnation of Capt. Jack Aubrey.)


Tony.

Try out "Why has Bodhi-Dharma left for the East?".

"Baraka" is another favorite of mine. Great beauty and not a spoken word.

Regards,

Cisco



The Mountain View Library has copies of both Tony. Don't know about your particular library system or whether you may wish to rent (I don't know about these things) and see if they are where you are.

They were important enough to me and I think they will be to you to invest in.

oxxo - 6-15-2012 at 02:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by toneart
After puzzling over this koan you have presented, I have realized that, metaphysically, it parallels the topic that has dominated this string; the answer is unknown!


OMZ, Tony, I think you are the only one who got the drift of my post. Good job amigo, here's to you. Salud.

Paula - 6-15-2012 at 03:20 PM

I've been away from home, following this thread on a different computer, and haven't a clue how to go about logging in, don't know my password, so I've been silent here.

I guess I could thank God(dess) for that because I probably would have made posts I would come to regret.
But this won't work for me as I am a pretty firm non-believer.

So I would stand squarely in Ken's corner if this were a fight, but it has actually been an interesting discussion.

So Ken, I'll just say that I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I admire your clarity and steadfastness, and your sunny good nature.

Skipjack Joe - 6-15-2012 at 03:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
There are other many fine stories of this nature by Dostoyevsky. A really good one, perhaps the best is

The Dream of a Ridiculous (sometimes tranlated as Superfluous) Man


Found a copy and downloaded it. The files opens fine.

http://generation.feedbooks.com/book/2138.pdf

I love book suggestions. I come across books I never would have found otherwise.

[Edited on 6-15-2012 by SFandH]


Excelloent! Just read it again. It was only 20 pages long. Glad I didn't have to slog through my russian copy.

The following is the first part of chapter 5, the downfall. It addresses much of what we talked about :


Yes, yes, it ended in my corrupting them all! How it could come to pass I
do not know, but I remember it clearly. The dream embraced thousands
of years and left in me only a sense of the whole. I only know that I was
the cause of their sin and downfall. Like a vile trichina, like a germ of the
plague infecting whole kingdoms, so I contaminated all this earth, so
happy and sinless before my coming. They learnt to lie, grew fond of lying,
and discovered the charm of falsehood. Oh, at first perhaps it began
innocently, with a jest, coquetry, with amorous play, perhaps indeed
with a germ, but that germ of falsity made its way into their hearts and
pleased them. Then sensuality was soon begotten, sensuality begot jealousy,
jealousy — cruelty … Oh, I don't know, I don't remember; but
soon, very soon the first blood was shed. They marvelled and were horrified,
and began to be split up and divided. They formed into unions, but
it was against one another. Reproaches, upbraidings followed. They
came to know shame, and shame brought them to virtue. The conception
of honour sprang up, and every union began waving its flags. They
began torturing animals, and the animals withdrew from them into the
forests and became hostile to them. They began to struggle for separation,
for isolation, for individuality, for mine and thine. They began to
talk in different languages. They became acquainted with sorrow and
loved sorrow; they thirsted for suffering, and said that truth could only
be attained through suffering. Then science appeared. As they became
wicked they began talking of brotherhood and humanitarianism, and
understood those ideas. As they became criminal, they invented justice
and drew up whole legal codes in order to observe it, and to ensure their
being kept, set up a guillotine. They hardly remembered what they had
lost, in fact refused to believe that they had ever been happy and innocent.
They even laughed at the possibility of this happiness in the past,
and called it a dream. They could not even imagine it in definite form
and shape, but, strange and wonderful to relate, though they lost all faith
in their past happiness and called it a legend, they so longed to be happy
and innocent once more that they succumbed to this desire like children, made an idol of it, set up temples and worshipped their own idea, their
own desire; though at the same time they fully believed that it was unattainable
and could not be realised, yet they bowed down to it and adored
it with tears! Nevertheless, if it could have happened that they had returned
to the innocent and happy condition which they had lost, and if
someone had shown it to them again and had asked them whether they
wanted to go back to it, they would certainly have refused. They
answered me: "We may be deceitful, wicked and unjust, we know it and
weep over it, we grieve over it; we torment and punish ourselves more
perhaps than that merciful Judge Who will judge us and whose Name
we know not. But we have science, and by the means of it we shall find
the truth and we shall arrive at it consciously. Knowledge is higher than
feeling, the consciousness of life is higher than life. Science will give us
wisdom, wisdom will reveal the laws, and the knowledge of the laws of
happiness is higher than happiness."


That is what they said, and after saying such things everyone began to
love himself better than anyone else, and indeed they could not do otherwise.
All became so jealous of the rights of their own personality that
they did their very utmost to curtail and destroy them in others, and
made that the chief thing in their lives. Slavery followed, even voluntary
slavery; the weak eagerly submitted to the strong, on condition that the
latter aided them to subdue the still weaker. Then there were saints who
came to these people, weeping, and talked to them of their pride, of their
loss of harmony and due proportion, of their loss of shame. They were
laughed at or pelted with stones. Holy blood was shed on the threshold
of the temples. Then there arose men who began to think how to bring
all people together again, so that everybody, while still loving himself
best of all, might not interfere with others, and all might live together in
something like a harmonious society. Regular wars sprang up over this
idea. All the combatants at the same time firmly believed that science,
wisdom and the instinct of self-preservation would force men at last to
unite into a harmonious and rational society; and so, meanwhile, to
hasten matters, 'the wise' endeavoured to exterminate as rapidly as possible
all who were 'not wise' and did not understand their idea, that the
latter might not hinder its triumph. But the instinct of self-preservation
grew rapidly weaker; there arose men, haughty and sensual, who demanded
all or nothing. In order to obtain everything they resorted to
crime, and if they did not succeed — to suicide. There arose religions
with a cult of non-existence and self-destruction for the sake of the everlasting
peace of annihilation. At last these people grew weary of their meaningless toil, and signs of suffering came into their faces, and then
they proclaimed that suffering was a beauty, for in suffering alone was
there meaning. They glorified suffering in their songs. I moved about
among them, wringing my hands and weeping over them, but I loved
them perhaps more than in old days when there was no suffering in their
faces and when they were innocent and so lovely. I loved the earth they
had polluted even more than when it had been a paradise, if only because
sorrow had come to it. Alas! I always loved sorrow and tribulation,
but only for myself, for myself; but I wept over them, pitying them. I
stretched out my hands to them in despair, blaming, cursing and despising
myself. I told them that all this was my doing, mine alone; that it
was I had brought them corruption, contamination and falsity. I besought
them to crucify me, I taught them how to make a cross. I could
not kill myself, I had not the strength, but I wanted to suffer at their
hands. I yearned for suffering, I longed that my blood should be drained
to the last drop in these agonies. But they only laughed at me, and began
at last to look upon me as crazy. They justified me, they declared that
they had only got what they wanted themselves, and that all that now
was could not have been otherwise. At last they declared to me that I
was becoming dangerous and that they should lock me up in a madhouse
if I did not hold my tongue. Then such grief took possession of my
soul that my heart was wrung, and I felt as though I were dying; and
then … then I awoke.

woody with a view - 6-15-2012 at 03:26 PM

this would be fun around a campfire. i can't keep up and the nuances are lost reading it in 1 dimension.....:mad:

Cisco - 6-15-2012 at 03:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Osprey
One More Thing before this closes

Goodman

Somewhere in the world there is a man of virtue. To remind you he is hypothetical I will call him Goodman.

Goodman was born in Asia, grew up in a small house with two parents and two siblings. He went to school, learned his letters, found a trade, now raises his own family.

Goodman is only remarkable because he never found religion. His life has been ordinary (for the region and the time) but those who know him say he shines as a beacon in the night as one who lives in a virtuous way. That is to say that his humanity is grand and visible – that he is giving, caring, always helping his fellow man while seeking no personal gain, wealth, fame or fortune. He is without guile or hubris; in all of his life he has not displayed attributes one could relate to the sins of religious doctrine.

Those devout followers of religions doubt such a man exists. They say that his Goodness could only be achieved by receiving some divine energy, guidance or association with formal religion. I will be his witness. He has never read a holy book, attended any religious service, joined others to pray, taken any vow, celebrated any rite of passage.

In Asia he is widely known. He has lived more than 80 years. Goodman does not fear death; he knows his time is near. He says his one and only regret is that he can stay no longer to help others. He has secretly hired two responsible young men from a nearby village to come to his home when they learn he has died, spirit his corpse away to a secluded place, build a huge fire and burn his body.

Millions pray for him. They pray that when he dies he will somehow, miraculously be permitted to enter, for time eternal, their various Nirvanas, Valhallas, Heavens --- that some divine intervention will take place opening the Holy Portal without his former knowledge of, devotion to their particular God or doctrine or deity. Millions of others scoff at those who pray, mock the very notion of a man without religion being admitted to Heaven. There are those who believe his Godlessness, a lack of devotion to their particular God, makes him a sinner no matter how he lived his life.

His family is beginning to fear the millions of Literalists who are passionate and unpredictable. They are the ones who damn Goodman for failure to follow the literal dogma of the core of their religion; arcane sacrificial offerings, the beating of his wife and children, self-mutilation, self-flagellation, purgings and crusades, wars and exorcisms, pogroms and inquisitions. Some Literalists acquiesce to the notion that Goodman had no knowledge of sacred text and testimony and for that reason his family should not be harmed.




What of his mortal body? What should be done with that? What about his funeral? He admits he is Godless; perhaps something should be done to see that his remains never enter a sacred place. Perhaps they should be disposed of completely as though he had never lived. Is there not some hidden danger here that he could be martyred? How powerful might be a force, a group that rallies behind a Godless hero? Is it not possible that there are those who might invent a new God to explain his holy behavior? His goodness could make a mockery of those who are overflowing with piety but lack decency and good will.

Has no one investigated this man? A single failing might be discovered to mollify the Literalists, to place him firmly with unholy agnostics and infidels whose sins and atrocities are daily visible in Asia.

Goodman died in the middle of the night. When his hirelings came to his house they found it empty. The whereabouts of his corpse is a mystery that will last through the ages. His family has vanished like the wind.

Now there is rumor of another Goodman in a town to the south. While there remains great unrest across the land the people have hope that this new one is merely a pretender. Strangely the streets are full of people; the mosques, churches and temples are not.


They have no crops, no livestock, no permanent shelters. . . .
 
Food production marched in lockstep with greater population densities, which allowed farm-based societies to displace or destroy hunter gatherer groups. . . .
Agriculture's sudden rise, however, came with a price.  It

introduced infectious-disease epidemics, social stratification, intermittent famines, and large-scale war. 
 
Jared Diamond, the UCLA professor and writer, has called the adoption of agriculture nothing less than "the worst mistake in human history"--a mistake, he suggests, from which we have never recovered.

The Hadza do not engage in warfare.  They've never lived densely enough to be seriously threatened by an infectious outbreak.  They have no known history of famine; rather, there is evidence of people from a farming group coming to live with them during a time of crop failure.  The Hadza diet remains even today more stable and varied than that of most of the world's citizens.  They enjoy an extraordinary amount of leisure time.  Anthropologists have estimated that they "work'--actively pursue food--four to six hours a day.  And over all these thousands of years, they've left hardly more than a footprint on the land.
 
Traditional Hadza...live almost entirely free of possessions.  The things they own--a cooking pot, a water container, and ax--can be wrapped in a blanket and carried over a shoulder. . . .
 
Individual autonomy is the hallmark of the Hadza.  No Hadza adult has authority over any other.  None has more wealth;  or, rather, they all have no wealth. . . .

Gender roles are distinct, but for women there is none of the forced subservience knit into many other cultures. A significant number of Hadza women who marry out of the group soon return, unwilling to accept bullying treatment. . . .

No Hadza I met... seemed prone to worry.  It was a mind-set that astounded me, for the Hadza, to my way of thinking, have very legitimate worries.  'Will I eat tomorrow?  Will something eat me tomorrow?'  Yet they live a remarkably present-tense existence.
 
This may be one reason farming has never appealed to the Hadza--growing crops requires planning;  seeds are sown now for plants that won't be edible for months. . . . To a Hadza, this makes no sense.  Why grow food or rear animals when it's being done for you, naturally, in the bush?  When they want berries, they walk to a berry shrub.  When they desire baobab fruit, they visit a baobab tree.  Honey waits for them in wild hives.  And they keep their meat in the biggest storehouse in the world--their land. . . . 

There are things I envy about the Hadza--mostly, how free they appear to be.  Free from possessions.  Free of most social duties.  Free from religious strictures.  Free of many family responsibilities.  Free from schedules, jobs, bosses, bills, traffic, taxes, laws, news, and money.  Free from worry. . . .
  
The days I spent with the Hadza altered my perception of the world.  They instilled in me something I call the "Hadza effect"--they made me feel calmer, more attuned to the moment, more self-sufficient, a little braver, and in less of a constant rush. . . . My time with the Hadza made me happier.  It made me wish there was some way to prolong the reign of hunter-gatherers, though I know it's almost certainly too late. . . .

We don't get it.  We are people of possession.  Loss of possession is death. It is intriguing how the attitudes and ways of the Hadza, described above, are what all our religions and psychologies and politics aspire to.  And their balance is what all our economists and environmentalists aspire to.

vgabndo - 6-15-2012 at 04:19 PM

I want to speak in praise of the progressive people who have dominated this discussion. I think it speaks volumes about the way the "liberal brain" appears to be able to deal with these kinds of questions, and the uncertainties that spring from them. I sense an excitement among people who have said that they have "grown" through this discourse. I don't get the impression that the paranormal side of the discussion made much of an expression of gratitude for being assisted to improve their understanding of the subject. I haven't felt "excitement of learning" from the proponents of belief over reason. My home schooled guess that there may be some explanation in the new brain science showing how the emigdula predominates in conservatives and the ACC in progressives.
I'm sure someone knows a lot more about that than I do.

Some religious arguments for the existence of of god, I must admit, defy any rational answer. Here is a one minute example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&feature=playe...

oxxo - 6-15-2012 at 04:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Some religious arguments for the existence of of god, I must admit, defy any rational answer. Here is a one minute example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&feature=playe...


My take is that they are having some "fun" at believers' expense! :lol:

BACK ON TOPIC: Skeet/Loreto

David K - 6-15-2012 at 05:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Doug I have been on this board for 10 years. Had a great time until about 2 years ago. When the Mcfez, Goat, Joe bunch got on and ruined it.

Now you have become a "Cheater" selling my Information to other sources, I feel sorry for You to have to become a "Cheater..

please remove me from this Board.

Skeet/loreto


The above was the opening post in this thread.

A week ago, I received an email from Skeet that requested I post it here... I have also asked McFez and BajaNomad (Doug) to confirm what was said on Off Topic... I have no idea why this thread has become nothing to do with Skeet's leaving, but this is back on topic:

The following is SKEET's E-MAIL, un edited:
===================================================

David: I appreciate all of your supportive and Kind words. As I xcan no longer get on this Board whould you please Post this under my name?





McFez is a LIAR!!!!!!!!



I did post a Thread and used the word "Negro~ several times/ I nevcer used the ugly word!!



MCfez changed it to try to make me look bad.



The Post he made of the Kitty Cat was the Lowest and most Offensive Post I have ever seen. Only a very Low-Class person wpuld do such a Cruel Thing





It is very interesting to see all the different Comments. The reason I left this Board was because mu Personal Information has been used to make MOPNEY and I wasa not paid a Commission for its Use!!!



God Bless you all!



Skeet/Loreto.

===================================================

I don't go to Off Topic, and find it hard to believe Skeet (who I have met once in Baja) would use such a term. I also have had very friendly exchanges with McFez and don't think he would make up a hate word to use on another, so I can only hope it was a misunderstanding. Doug told me he does not remember Skeet using that word. If anyone else who reads off topic feels the need to confirm or deny such happened, feel free... or just let this end now.

I hope Skeet, with his many years in Baja, doesn't let people push him off because they may disagree with him. It is sad that most of us only know each other from what is typed here, without hearing the voice tones or seeing facial expressions. I think if McFez and Skeet actually met, there wouldn't be such hard feelings. Anyway, I have completed the favor to an old friend.

comitan - 6-15-2012 at 06:12 PM

Good job DK what would we do without you.:O:O:O

Skipjack Joe - 6-15-2012 at 08:01 PM

:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah, he pretty much sucked the life out of this thread.

Ateo - 6-15-2012 at 09:11 PM

Dead thread. :yes:

[Edited on 6-16-2012 by ateo]

Ateo - 6-15-2012 at 09:18 PM

Having said dead thread......I swear I heard some racist stuff from Skeet. Forgive me if Im wrong. I'm new here......

DK, it was OT where I saw some embarrassing language from Skeet. I hold people accountable for what they say. I'm sure he was cool in Baja, as I would be too, but I promise you I will never talk crap about skin colors.

Like I said, if I'm wrong I will apologize.

wessongroup - 6-16-2012 at 07:25 AM

Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...

Oh, that's right we now have hate speech ... no need for tar and feathering and the ride out of town on a rail ...

Progress is great HUH ... just ONE word is enough to destroy an individual ... now that is what is REAL power ... or an extension of the third grade, which I recall well... and did not like either ...

oxxo - 6-16-2012 at 07:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...


He pulled the plug on himself.

SFandH - 6-16-2012 at 07:41 AM

I hope something resurrects the religious writing. There are some excellent writers on this message board that have thought about the issue much more than I have.

I'm wondering if the people that believe there is no question to the existence of the god of Abraham feel the same way about Satan and other angels described in the Bible.

[Edited on 6-16-2012 by SFandH]

David K - 6-16-2012 at 08:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ateo
Having said dead thread......I swear I heard some racist stuff from Skeet. Forgive me if Im wrong. I'm new here......

DK, it was OT where I saw some embarrassing language from Skeet. I hold people accountable for what they say. I'm sure he was cool in Baja, as I would be too, but I promise you I will never talk crap about skin colors.

Like I said, if I'm wrong I will apologize.


Thanks, please u2u me...

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 08:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...


He pulled the plug on himself.


The role of Victim is the most powerful role in games. They can righteously blame others for their decisions and behavior. They can claim "foul" on those who they deem to have wronged them. They can claim status from their defeated position. They can blame others for kicking them when they asked for it. If you try and help them you a are stuck with a tar baby as they will kick you for "helping" them. On it goes.

How could you terrible Nomads criticize this poor man who only said these vicious things because he cared about the everlasting souls of others, wanted to save our beloved nation from the pollution of the values of the besotted, drug addled Berkeley Liberals. And how could you be so "politically correct" as to challenge someone who is only using a word (N....) After all its only a word. How could you victimize someone for just using a word?

If you disagree with a victim they see you as persecuting them and react accordingly by persecuting you or acting like you have wounded them. Very powerful stuff!!

How could you Atheistic Liberals hijack a thread on how this poor innocent person was hounded off this board? God I feel bad.

Iflyfish

Barry A. - 6-16-2012 at 09:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...


He pulled the plug on himself.


The role of Victim is the most powerful role in games. They can righteously blame others for their decisions and behavior. They can claim "foul" on those who they deem to have wronged them. They can claim status from their defeated position. They can blame others for kicking them when they asked for it. If you try and help them you a are stuck with a tar baby as they will kick you for "helping" them. On it goes.

How could you terrible Nomads criticize this poor man who only said these vicious things because he cared about the everlasting souls of others, wanted to save our beloved nation from the pollution of the values of the besotted, drug addled Berkeley Liberals. And how could you be so "politically correct" as to challenge someone who is only using a word (N....) After all its only a word. How could you victimize someone for just using a word?

If you disagree with a victim they see you as persecuting them and react accordingly by persecuting you or acting like you have wounded them. Very powerful stuff!!

How could you Atheistic Liberals hijack a thread on how this poor innocent person was hounded off this board? God I feel bad.

Iflyfish


Criticizing Skeet for a particular statement is one thing, but to judgementally bully him and intellectually crucify him is worse than ANYTHING that Skeet has supposedly done, IMO.

You have NOT walked in his moccasins!!!!

Yes, this thread has revealed a lot!!!

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 6-16-2012 at 09:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish

God I feel bad.



Some day it'll be the G word's turn to be shunned.

I think some would like it that way now.

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 09:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...


He pulled the plug on himself.


The role of Victim is the most powerful role in games. They can righteously blame others for their decisions and behavior. They can claim "foul" on those who they deem to have wronged them. They can claim status from their defeated position. They can blame others for kicking them when they asked for it. If you try and help them you a are stuck with a tar baby as they will kick you for "helping" them. On it goes.

How could you terrible Nomads criticize this poor man who only said these vicious things because he cared about the everlasting souls of others, wanted to save our beloved nation from the pollution of the values of the besotted, drug addled Berkeley Liberals. And how could you be so "politically correct" as to challenge someone who is only using a word (N....) After all its only a word. How could you victimize someone for just using a word?

If you disagree with a victim they see you as persecuting them and react accordingly by persecuting you or acting like you have wounded them. Very powerful stuff!!

How could you Atheistic Liberals hijack a thread on how this poor innocent person was hounded off this board? God I feel bad.

Iflyfish


Criticizing Skeet for a particular statement is one thing, but to judgementally bully him and intellectually crucify him is worse than ANYTHING that Skeet has supposedly done, IMO.

You have NOT walked in his moccasins!!!!

Yes, this thread has revealed a lot!!!

Barry


Judgmentally bully and crucify him.

I appreciate your clearly demonstrating the point I was making about the power of the Victim position.

Now we have JUDGMENTALLY BULLIED and CRUCIFIED him. All because he said what?? Hmmm, how could we have done this to this innocent man? How could we have responded with foul words and bullying ideas to his words? And now we have been given words that he has arisen again and we can clearly see how we destroyed He who was blameless and would save us from our immoral ways.

I feel chastised and the guilt of his Crucifiction is now upon me.

Iflyfishinashclothandashes

Cisco - 6-16-2012 at 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by oxxo
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Hey how about, we tar and feather him and ride him out of town on a rail ...


He pulled the plug on himself.


The role of Victim is the most powerful role in games. They can righteously blame others for their decisions and behavior.

How could you Atheistic Liberals hijack a thread on how this poor innocent person was hounded off this board? God I feel bad.

Iflyfish




Sorry.


(hangs head in shame)

Iflyfish - 6-16-2012 at 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish

God I feel bad.



Some day it'll be the G word's turn to be shunned.

I think some would like it that way now.


Poor god. I wonder if she will be up to the challenge?

Iflyfish

Skipjack Joe - 6-16-2012 at 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Iflyfish

God I feel bad.



Some day it'll be the G word's turn to be shunned.

I think some would like it that way now.


Poor god. I wonder if she will be up to the challenge?

Iflyfish


Oh .... I'm sure He's still watching over us.

treeeye.jpg - 49kB
 Pages:  1  ..  3    5    7