Unbelievers are superstitious and unrepentant

[Dywyddyr]

Does anyone else actually understand the replies that Kx000 makes?

He's never been coherent (even under his previous name). That's a hallmark of his posts.
I sometimes think that he reads posts on a different forum altogether and then posts his replies here.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No amount of reasoning or logic will make a dent in their opinion.

Well I often say you can't change belief with facts and this is my belief and a fact as well.

We should not be unkind however and suggest Saint is mentally defective, we should be understanding and avoid being judgemental.
Saint may have issues in the real world that causes anger which he finds difficult to control.
Just as I have had unpleasant experience with many religious folk maybe Saint has had unpleasant experience with a non believer such that he is driven to lash out here.

I would love to hear Saint answer the question I present....maybe he has no answer and relies entirely on faith maybe there is a good reason in his mind why God does not seem to care or help.

Is his loyalty driven by fear...you know if God is mad at you I guess he has the power to hurt you...cause you to starve or be blown up or suffer a miserable life.

Alex

 

[PhysBang]

30~40 years ago many scientist declared that we will not have shortage of food,
we can engineer plant to produce more crops,
we have pesticide ti kill pests.
Is that true?
More people are dying of starvation now!

Starvation over the last century tends to be a function of distribution, not of production. There is more than enough food in the world, but not the motivation to distribute this food to the people who need it. Many good Christians throw away food or deny the foreign aid that might supply it.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The lamb is slain from its own foundation.

Would you care to explain this?
Look quoting old world stuff may sound nice but if it makes no sence, such as your lamb statement, then why use it.
Read Shakespeare you will get lots of nice sounding words strung together such that they make sence.

You can't say that. Did you prevent suffering? No your just in it as deep as any of us.

You know you are right here.

I do nothing to prevent suffering. It is an overwhelming prospect. If its in my face sure I would but you are dam (damn) right.
Thank you for helping me learn something unpleasant about myself and other humans...who would have thought...thank you..I sincerely mean it.


I don't do anything to cause suffering other than buy cheap goods and toys and demand cheap prices such that some poor devil has to work in a sweat shop to feed his family.

But you cause me to realise how much as a mere weak old human I am responsible thru in action.

Pity God does not seem to respond with the same compassion that now envelopes me...a real shame.

Suffering is a given. Its the first nobel truth of Buddhism.

Why?
Buddha may have observed suffering and seen it as "the first noble truth" but why must we suffer?
I suffer with my legs and true it sure makes me appreciate everything much better.

Is that it? God let's us suffer so we appreciate life?

Sounds good doesn't it..move over Budda I am here.

It all sounds good for minor suffering such as mine but how does it go for the little babies, the inoccent children..I mean I may need pulling up but do the inoccent really need suffering to teach them appreciation?

Come on now be honest with me...are you Nick?
If so why do you think I am evil?
Do I remind you of someone?
What have I said that is different to anything others here have not said?

Why focus on me?

Why this sock puppet thing or am I wrong...are you Nick or not..

Alex

 

[timojin]

He

Do you, timojin, think it's ok to insult people without giving any justification? Because that is what Saint is doing here.

I don't think is right to insult , but probably the individual got upset because he feels he got ganged up and so this is his reaction.

Mod Hat - two posts merged to simplify reading (appears to have been a forum glitch?) - Kittamaru

 

[DaveC426913]

... feels he got ganged up and so this is his reaction.

You do realize that the individual started the thread and chose the subject text.

That is the exact opposite of reaction. That is action aforethought.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He

Do you, timojin, think it's ok to insult people without giving any justification? Because that is what Saint is doing here.

I don't think is right to insult , but probably the individual got upset because he feels he got ganged up and so this is his reaction.

Are you hinting that I am being insulting?...given my "Nick" comments are basically unjustified...but you know how "belief" can badly mislead someone.
If so please be specific.
If not forget I asked.

What are your thoughts on all of this.
I do remember (and like) your chess game anology ... Can you offer more here?
Alex

Post edited to fix missing quote (possible forum glitch?) - Kittamaru

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

In the above post I quoted Tim but that does not appear...when I checked via edit the quote appears... Anyways posts after seem to answer my concerns.
Alex

 

[Dywyddyr]

Then you'd best believe. Faith, and hope can suffer for a short time and not a second longer. The lamb is slain from its own foundation

Meaningless drivel.

You can't say that. Did you prevent suffering? No your just in it as deep as any of us.

Er, what?
I've certainly prevented some suffering. Other suffering is too far away or beyond my capabilities.
To claim all are "just as deep" is not only a gross generalisation it's also somewhat fatuous.

Suffering is a given.

Really?

Its the first nobel truth of Buddhism.

It may be a truth, but there's bugger all "noble" about it.
And, when it comes to it, Buddhism is no more demonstrably correct than any other religion or system of belief.

If suffering were a real man, he wouldn't be a sinner so he wouldn't have to go to hell. But he's dangerous, so that rules out Heaven. This creates the reality we think we live in.

Again, meaningless bollocks.

 

[James R]

30~40 years ago many scientist declared that we will not have shortage of food,
we can engineer plant to produce more crops,
we have pesticide ti kill pests.
Is that true?

Yes. What has this got to do with unbelievers?

More people are dying of starvation now!

Assuming what you say is true, is this the fault of the unbelievers?

Stupid heathens!

Stop the gratuitous insults, please.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I put to you previously regarding sin and the like, or not?

if crime is not sin, that will be fine to murder your mother (unless you hate your mother and be happy to see her murdered )

Ok. So your claim is that everything is ok unless it is a sin - even murdering your mother, apparently.

So, now you just need to explain what a sin is. I suggested that a sin is an affront to God. Am I right or wrong?

Do you think that the only reason people shouldn't murder their mothers is because God will get angry if they do? Or could there be other reasons not to murder your mother?

 

[iceaura]

Starvation over the last century tends to be a function of distribution, not of production

That's probably always been true. In times past we lacked the physical ability to identify the shortages and transport the food. Now we lack the political ability.

 

[Kittamaru]

In the above post I quoted Tim but that does not appear...when I checked via edit the quote appears... Anyways posts after seem to answer my concerns.
Alex

It looks like Tim's post got split in two, and the one you quoted was just a quote of JamesR - by default, when using the quote function, it pares out existing quotes. Given that the post you quoted had no other text beyond the quote, the quote part is blank and doesn't display.

I merged two of Tim's posts together (his quoting of JamesR and his response to it) and fixed your post to show the quote. I'm guessing it was a bit of forum software derp... *shrug* Either way, should make more sense now

 

[wellwisher]

One way to look at believers versus unbelievers is based on science. We have two centers of the brain. The primary center is called the inner self , while the secondary center is called the ego. You can prove there are two centers to yourself, by running some consciousness experiments, on yourself. One simple experiment is have a friend or friends conspire to scare you, when your guard is down. If they can catch you off guard, will you react, via the inner self, before the ego has time to think of its next move. This can be embarrassing to ego, if the inner self gives off an awkward scream, that the ego would prefer hide behind its strong looking mask. If you run a few cycles of this, you should be able to prove to yourself, there is secondary center helping you.

Religions, tend to deal with the needs of the inner self, whereas atheism tends to deal with the needs of the ego. The inner self brings one into connection with natural instincts and nature. The ego has willpower and choice and can depart from natural into artificial. The ego was needed for civilization to form, since many go the changes were not natural.

The inner self is more than just our instincts. The inner self has also extrapolated to the needs of the ego. Additional firmware has evolved in the inner self, that is only found in humans. Religion is about gaining more access to this extra firmware.

The ego can willfully trigger the brain; fire neurons, short term lowering the potential of the brain. Long term habits can lower the inner self set point, so the higher level firmware can become out of phase. What will be left are the instinctive firmware on which the ego is built. On the other hand, the ego can make choices that help the brain gain potential, so the inner self set point increases, again, allowing higher level firmware to come back into phase.

Religion is about regulating the free choices of the ego, so the inner self set point increases. Sin tends to cause higher brain drain leading to the inner self set point going down. The lowly and humble Jesus, was showing a way; example, of how to lower the brain drain so the inner self set point could rise. While the arrogance of the ego, fires the brain more. This extra flux of energy make the ego feel stronger, but it can changes the phase of the brain over time.

Buddha is about the same thing. He withdrew from the illusions of culture; super ego based brain drain, in favor of building up the inner self set point. He took this one step further and eliminated his ego, to become an inner self. This is unique. Christianity kept the ego; lowly son, since it was still needed for the inner self to evolve.

There are many paths that lead to this same place; higher inner self set point and more access to the new firmware. The faithful will move in the increase set point direction. A fixed procedure of law can help lower the brain drain of high energy behavior. However, sometimes, like in chemical reactions, you need activation energy to trigger a reaction. This implies ups and downs; faith and covered sins, to allow some to ratchet the set point upward.

What scares atheists most about religion, are some of the religious can display exaggerated consciousness affects. This can be the Saint or the terrorist suicide bomber. This is often a result of more access to the inner self, which makes them a pawn of natural energy. The ego can't go there with will power and feels insecure when it happens. The believers move the inner self set point upward. This access appears through experiences of their faith .The unbelievers go the other way, where the inner self set points lowers, so it become less conscious. This allows the ego to stand alone and not see its foundation. It depends more on culture to play the role of an inner self look alike. But a culture of big egos instead of wise people, assures the set point goes down until there is an instinctive social adjustment like war. The purge may be needed to get rid of the artificial inner self.

 

[Kittamaru]

One way to look at believers versus unbelievers is based on science. We have two centers of the brain. The primary center is called the inner self , while the secondary center is called the ego. **SNIP**

Technically, there is the Ego, Id, and SuperEgo (if you are referring to the Psychological concepts of self):

The id is the primitive and instinctive component of personality. It consists of all the inherited (i.e. biological) components of personality present at birth, including the sex (life) instinct – Eros (which contains the libido), and the aggressive (death) instinct - Thanatos.

The id is the impulsive (and unconscious) part of our psyche which responds directly and immediately to the instincts.

The ego develops in order to mediate between the unrealistic id and the external real world. It is the decision making component of personality. Ideally the ego works by reason, whereas the id is chaotic and totally unreasonable.





The ego operates according to the reality principle, working out realistic ways of satisfying the id’s demands, often compromising or postponing satisfaction to avoid negative consequences of society. The ego considers social realities and norms, etiquette and rules in deciding how to behave.

Like the id, the ego seeks pleasure (i.e. tension reduction) and avoids pain, but unlike the id the ego is concerned with devising a realistic strategy to obtain pleasure. The ego has no concept of right or wrong; something is good simply if it achieves its end of satisfying without causing harm to itself or to the id.

Often the ego is weak relative to the headstrong id and the best the ego can do is stay on, pointing the id in the right direction and claiming some credit at the end as if the action were its own.

The superego incorporates the values and morals of society which are learned from one's parents and others. It develops around the age of 3 – 5 during the phallic stage of psychosexual development.





The superego's function is to control the id's impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection.

The superego consists of two systems: The conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the ego through causing feelings of guilt. For example, if the ego gives in to the id's demands, the superego may make the person feel bad through guilt.

The ideal self (or ego-ideal) is an imaginary picture of how you ought to be, and represents career aspirations, how to treat other people, and how to behave as a member of society.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html

Obviously these are pretty simplified, but still a good starting point

 

[Dywyddyr]

We have two centers of the brain.

This is wrong.

Religions, tend to deal with the needs of the inner self, whereas atheism tends to deal with the needs of the ego.

This appears to be invented. Source?

and can depart from natural into artificial. The ego was needed for civilization to form, since many go the changes were not natural.

Same here.

Religion is about gaining more access to this extra firmware.

And here.

What scares atheists most about religion

What makes you think atheists are scared of religion?

are some of the religious can display exaggerated consciousness affects. This can be the Saint or the terrorist suicide bomber. This is often a result of more access to the inner self, which makes them a pawn of natural energy.

Made up crap.

But a culture of big egos instead of wise people

Please provide evidence that:
A) atheists have "bigger egos" than believers, and
B) that believers are "wiser" than atheists.

In short: stop posting made up crap as if it were fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

This isn't an argument about religion, it's simple flame bait.

I have decided to stop feeding the trolls.

Fight the good fight, guys.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Why fight the troll when it could be banned?

 

[kx000]

Would you care to explain this?
Look quoting old world stuff may sound nice but if it makes no sence, such as your lamb statement, then why use it.
Read Shakespeare you will get lots of nice sounding words strung together such that they make sence.

Because he's passive, and I believe. As true as it came its part of hopes nature to suffer for a very short time. Giving a time for hate.

Buddha may have observed suffering and seen it as "the first noble truth" but why must we suffer?

Because suffering isn't a sin. And because of hope.

Is that it? God let's us suffer so we appreciate life?

Because suffering is an Iscariot.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Because he's passive, and I believe. As true as it came its part of hopes nature to suffer for a very short time. Giving a time for hate.

I am sorry but I don't understand what you mean.
I suspect you are learning English and all I can suggest is to keep at it.
Anyways you believe.
Thanks for trying to respond.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Because suffering isn't a sin. And because of hope.

I see no logic here.
Suffering is not a sin ... My hat is not a sin...so what.
I miss the point you try to make.

Because suffering is an Iscariot.

This may make sence to you but it makes no sence to me..sorry..
I find it hard to understand what you mean.
I think we can not have any meaningful discussion.

That's a pity.

Have a good day.

Alex