1a2bcio8

You failed to change amused to aroused, in your quote of me, for maximal-comical effectiveness. Slight fail there, Luke.

Aside from the boobage, she looks about 13 years old. Rape? Your avatar somewhat supports the idea.

bitch-forum.co.uk today is it, chaps? It amuses me to imagine you all dressed up as women, swinging handbags at one another.

Yeah I got that bit (Susan Coffey). I meant is she an actress, singer, etc? Professional looking images suggest she might be something along those lines. Fair play on seeing your lady that way. Often the way we see people in terms of their personality and how we feel about them can lead us to feel that way. It's possible see somebodies 'inner' beauty in their outer beauty, so to speak. I've been there Of course the reverse is also true and people can seem physically ugly due to their personality.

forgive my impure thoughts, father, but whozzat?

Yeah that can happen. Unfortunately on that basis we can't decree all religion or all Christianity as bad because it oversimplifies the situation. In so much as you accept the essence of Christianity as having some validity (teaches something), the following misunderstanding by certain followers is not then actually the fault of the religion in its truest sense but rather is a human confusion, which happens in all walks of life. Ironically, the essence of religion usually relates to the realisations of wise people who usually taught to dispell the type of confusion that we find pervading their religion. Unfortunately when somebody like Jesus or the Buddha dies, the proper and effective authority no longer exists to stop their religion being misused. Thus, both Buddhism and Christianity have been utilized for greed, hatred, etc. which the founders diametrically opposed. Realistically, if religion had never existed, political ideology or some other system of thought would naturally have taken its place as a superficial, rational justification for fulfilling the motivation of greed, hate, etc. The problem is not religion per se, it's our ability to fully appreciate, understand and control our psychological condition in response to events in our respective lives.

I'm gonna struggle describing this because I feel very groggy but I'll give it a go. I also can't remember the exact details of what I'm about to describe as it's been several years since I read it. A myth can be descriptive of how man finds himself (his situation) and/or what he can do to solve problems that follow from that situation. For instance, an interpretation of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge which, as a literalism, is quite 'out there' can be considered as the human evolving between the bliss of animalistic ignorance into the suffering of dualistic/intellectual understanding (good vs. bad). As animals, although we may have gone through various pains, we weren't in the situation where we could experience mental anguish of the existential type. Animals, we think, don't worry about death or worry about anything for that matter, they just react according to the moment rather than to ideas of the past or future or ideas about a situation. Humans have gone through a process of breaking away from animalistic behaviour/perception/cognition and as a consequence we suffer because we can think of good and bad regardless of whether something really bad is actually happening. Adam and Eve after eating from the tree of knowledge, and being able to think in terms of good and bad, became embarrassed by their nakedness. They developed the capacity to think about what was happening and in terms of dualism (good and bad) and as a consequence through this new thinking they suffer. What this teaches us that the core of human suffering, beyond basic animalistic pain, is our capacity to think and to think in terms of good and bad, from which we tend to be subject regarding happiness and sanity in a negative sense. The Tree of Knowledge is symbolic for our change between pre-rational animalistic type existence and the rational human existence we now find ourselves in with its specific constiuents and problems. However, the tree of knowledge is also a good thing because it allows us to reason. It allows man to find his own way even if it does initially lead to new levels of insanity and suffering. Ultimately it should allow for a higher state of being beyond the animalistic bliss which it followed.

It's also very true of Buddhism that the life of the Buddha was mythologised, with the description of his path to enlightenment somewhat exaggerated in the various Buddhist texts. Often myth is just a means of communicating a truth, idea, etc. in a form that will actually appeal to the general public as opposed to some dry academic piece that is of little interest or understandable. The Buddha had a term and I forget (remembered - "skillful means") what it was but essentially it was a consideration of the way you present what you say to the type of person you are talking to in order for them to take away the most amount of understanding that is possible. The point is best illustrated by considering the way in which we often teach scientific ideas. For instance, regarding Chemistry, we would probably begin talking of atoms as spheres; then perhaps we would later talk of them structured as a nucleus of neutrons and protons with electrons making neat circular orbits; then we would move onto considering electron orbitals in terms of uncertainy principle with a 3d model displaying the varying types of space that an electron is likely to occupy at a given moment. Trying to teach the last of these to a young child isn't really appropriate. Instead, communicating a part of the truth in a digestable form is appropriate and is what we currently do with regards to science education. Another example is that I am quite happy to read about philosophy in non-fiction whereas I have a friend who prefers to read his philosophy through fiction. The former is much drier than the latter and so is less desirable to read for some - we can still come away with the same understanding however. If myth was the means that the potentially important messages of the Buddha and Jesus could be communicated to a general public, then I see little wrong in doing so. I guess probably myth as a type of exaggerated story isn't so appropriate for a larger majority of today's adults but it probably still is for a good quantity. If there weren't such an aversion to it, it would still be appropriate for all though. It can easily be considered alongside non-mythologised discussion of the respective areas. edit: fair point JD

Jews are a type of people, who can but do not always practice Judaism. A Jew can become a Christian depsite being born a Jew, if that makes sense? Basically, a Jew and Judaism (the religious system) aren't the same thing or fixed to one another. A load of Christianity is probably nonsense regarding certain interpretations and intentions. I wouldn't deny that but still, you never know how screwy this existence could turn out to be

Regarding the latter point, I'm unsure why that matters? Jesus is 'worshiped' or respected because of what he taught/said/realised. There's not really anything contradictory about it. When somebody is Jewish, it refers to their ethnicity. Somebodies ethnicity doesn't have to define or limit the way of thinking they put forward, whereby it's contradictory for a Jew to think in any other way that's not Judaist; and it's contradictory for somebody that's not a Jew to subscribe to a religion founded by a Jew.

That's not what I thought. I felt they raised many issues which we've previously discussed but articulated and surmized them somewhat better. It was amusing for me to see them being so pleasant to one another. Dawkins, like Hitchens, as I know him can sometimes be a bit of a diatribist and quite condescending. I've developed some respect for him from watching that. He was very open to an opposing view regarding its strength of argument

Ah but is it really a question? Is that not the question or a question? edit: Buggar I missed you asking if it's a question already. Bit of a fail, was that. My omnipotence/omniscience is lacking a bit this evening :$

I'm not sure what I've done? Anyway, I'll admit to not being absolutely sure about anything. I consider it a virtue! It's just some things seem more or less likely. God as a man like entity seems mostly unlikely to me. But then I'm just a limited human being with a limited comprehension of what the fook is actually going on, so I might be wrong. It tends to be the fundamentalists that spend most of the time stuck to one side of the fence Oh yeah Alan, although I'm still waiting for the name change, I'd appreciate it if you refered to me as Jesus from now on. Appreciated, thanks.

What if some religion(s) actually have wisdom or understanding about unchanging truths? In that sense, there's little need to change. Not that I'm saying religion definitely does but the point is worth considering, I think. That's definitely not to say that all religion is composed only of unchanging truths but perhaps some of it is and some truths (or suggestions?) are only appropriate for a certain time in history.

Cheers for that Phil. It was a good watch but a shame that it was only a summary. I do find it unfortunate that a western consideration of religion is always considered in such ethnocentric terms (just Christianity) but I really appreciate the point that was raised regarding the difference between the essence of Christianity and the utilization of Christianity for contradictory means. It was also a pleasure to see Hitchens more restrained than usual in attitude. I can take him a bit more sincerely in that form. Anyway, I can see another forum storm coming, maybe? I shall remain relatively to the side on this one

The question is, is this possible? Even if Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. disappear will not the same questions and similar answers still exist. They may well just end up with a different face that we may no longer call religion despite still being religion? I can certainly imagine religion in terms of Gods disappearing though or at the very least transforming to omit a God or Gods. There seems little point in playing about with an idea that we seem unable to really know about either way.

MUST..... HOLD...... TONGUE..... But despite that, you're quite right for a great deal, probably most, of the Christian manifestations across past and present.

Yep and stereotyping does have a certain inevitability. However, that only relates to certain circumstances and every instance doesn't require stereotyping. Too little stereotyping and you'd be overwhelmed (too much to consider), possibly get yourself into trouble (scally analogy) but too much stereotyping and you can easily ignore the reality and diversity of a situation which can also lead to many problems (racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.). Personally, it doesn't seem like too much to consider America as diverse and different. I think it's probably healthier in this instance. I guess the point is not to become dogmatic about a stereotype to the extent that you ignore evidence that contradicts your stereotype. I realise I can't help myself about the attitudes of others. I should probably just keep quiet about my philosophies

but

Even if it's a hugh number, still, we shouldn't take them to be entirely representitive of all America. I guess I'm trying to indicate what I always do regarding the mistake of confusing a part for a whole.

I find that both very disappointing and sad. It just seems like one big confusion stemming from unfulfilled psychological needs. Any system that refuses self-criticism and consideration is ultimately doomed to insanity. Of course, I appreciate the love they have for me. Oh yeah, be wary of taking this an an entire representation of the states. I'm pretty sure this type of Christian represent a small minority.

Yeah we did kind've hijack the thread. Sorry about that. I think I'm pretty much done with it as well to be honest, anyway. Long posts are tiring but it's been fun as always

Please feel free to take a look at the writer I've been trying to refer you to for a wealth of evidence regarding the position I'm putting forward: Mary Midgley - "Evolution as a Religion", in addition to many of her other works which are similarly themed. I remember the general argument but not the specific instances that I'm refering to - I read the book a couple of years ago. I do recall how those scientists sounded however and that prominent scientists such as Dawkins (regarding his "selfish gene") were involved in this analysis. Despite the fact that I've got the book sat next to me, I'm not really in the mood to look through and find those specific instances to quote. The trouble with evidence, and by this I assume you mean empirical evidence, is that science isn't constiuated just by that. It certainly emphasises empirical evidence and rightly so, but the practice of science also incorporates the complexities of the human condition. Assumption within inductive and deductive reasoning, the subjugation of reason to emotional desire (to a greater or lesser extent) and so on are integral to evidence through observation. This can all lead to faith, confusion, misconception, etc. I'm with you on so called scientific creationism as a fallacy though. That's actually an awesome example of how reason can be subjugated to emotional desire. The trouble is, 'secular' scientists are open to the very same problem. The motivations with a God are just more readily recognised the more subtle motivations of 'straight' scientists.

It's not quite that simple though. Often scientists attempt to extend their practice into the area of religion, politics, etc. This usually relates to a mentality which similarly defines faith within religion and thus we can say of scientists that they act in ways toward their practice that religion is criticised for by science and science is therefore being religious in that sense. It's a great irony. edit: forgot to actually complete what I was saying before

That just might be the myth of science whereby it's considered not to be permeated by subjectivety regarding alterior motivation, desire, etc. Scientists, despite their title, are still humans after all and although one might get quite good at moving toward 'pure' objectivity, it simply can't happen because all awareness of object is through subject. Again, I suggest a reading of Mary Midgley who looks at individuals such as Dawkins who, although seeming to be these extraodinarily rational beings who make purely scientific statements, overextend the nature of science into something which it is not through alterior subjective motivation. It's really very interesting how scientists end up sounding more like religionists, residing under their omnipotent, omniscient practice that is erroneously applicable to a sphere other than its own. This is probably always going to happen to one degree or another, it just so happens that, supported by the popular denial of its occurence, it's quite prevalent to a larger degree. This is in no way a denigration of science, which within its own sphere is quite amazing. It's just a consideration of what gets done with science by both laymans and scientists alike. I think it again illustrates an underlying human condition whereby we always end up 'religious' or mythological, regardless of whether it's Buddhism, Christianity, Science or Communism. Although this is where I appreciate the concept of sunyata in Buddhism which means emptiness. Specifically, it's the situation whereby we experience reality in the absence of concept. In than sense although we may have used a religious practice, we end up transcending it to a situation of neither religion or non-religion. We leave the religion boat at the shore of naked reality after we cross the river of concept, to modify an old Buddhist expression