| 
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist
And again we have BB painting all 'faithers' with the same brush :P
What of those who did not seek an 'imaginary friend' but ended up with one anyway? Personally I could quite happily live without them, just like I can cope without cars, mobile phones and the internet. But if they are, to me, demonstrably there, then why should I not interact with them?
Unlike you militant non-faithers I make no demands on what you believe. Nor do I characterize everyone who doesn't experience what I do as unable to cope with a deity, or dumb, or having a childlike yearning for atheism. I also don't blame people who don't think as I do for many of the bad things in the world (a common trait of the more aggressive atheists).
I wouldn't for a moment decide that you non-faithers are delusional (after all you can't see a God that's standing right in front of you), or consider that as you are obviously mentally ill you are a danger to society and should be treated in an institution. Something that atheists on h2g2 have suggested to me more than once.
I believe in a secular society, where personal belief systems get no favouritism, but likewise suffer no penalties unless they break a law. Can we not live and let live?
Matholwch <o>.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by The Original Jez
The Higg's particle is not about /extra/ mass, it's about /any/ mass 
--
Jez - who has never been to mass
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by blicky badger...the spelling and grammar has gotten worse from lack of practice.
Having re-read "brave New World" recently my waivering views on faithers have waivered away from the waste of skin end of the scale (but its still fun to rattle your cages with a few broadsides).
I dont think Id want to livein a de-humanised society where peoples yearnings and feelings had no place or were taken away. That to me wqould be a terrible lossof individula freedom. However still dont think faithers oght to be allowed a lower bar for their arguments simply because they are allegedly handed down by a divine supreme being or because they mysteries revealed by river spirits.
"What of those who did not seek an 'imaginary friend' but ended up with one anyway? Personally I could quite happily live without them, just like I can cope without cars, mobile phones and the internet."
But if they are, to me, demonstrably there, then why should I not interact with them?
I have immense respect for a lot of what you say Math, a good portionof that respect is due tot he fact that you manage such wisdom despite the drag factor of all that stuff you go in for. Its a bit like watching a half cut Alex Higgins make a century break.
However you still converse largely with faithers from the more codified religions as if their impossible big G were real. This to me despite your tent being a different colour puts you firmly in the same camp as them. I dont think you lot are sub-normal in any way if anything I think Im the one sitting out on a limb. Maybe not on this site, but from chest crossing professional sports stars to suicide bombers to clinical psychologist housemate who believes in fairies, its fairly evident to me who global is in the majority.
Im even co-habitingm (happily thus far) with a faither so I bare no over-riding malice toward you lot. I think rationalists would have embarked on wars too and imposed their prejudices on others, we would have had to find other "justifications" than [insert invisible friends name] told me to do it. Stalin managed it.
Your "demonstrable", yet completely undetectable to me, friends are in all likelyhood as far as Ive seen just the random feedback of our imperfect minds.
I am to a degree colour blind this does not mean their is no distinction between certain shades of red and brown, but what I cant see can be reliably demonstrated as real by a combination of reproducable tests and evidence that shows no signs of being skewed by culturally derived preconceptions.
I havent seen anything from any of the faiths big or small, organisedor individual that passes this bench mark. So you are all in the same camp to me.
one love 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by pedro - tilting at windmills
<<And again we have BB painting all 'faithers' with the same brush :P>>
...
<<Unlike you militant non-faithers...>>
*Please* tell me the irony was intentional?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist
Hi BB
Having my cage rattled is always useful as it shakes up my complacency and makes me think for a change.
>> Having re-read "brave New World" recently my waivering views on faithers have waivered away from the waste of skin end of the scale (but its still fun to rattle your cages with a few broadsides).
Ah yes, Mr.Huxley's masterpiece, still a favourite of mine.
>> However still dont think faithers oght to be allowed a lower bar for their arguments simply because they are allegedly handed down by a divine supreme being or because they mysteries revealed by river spirits.
A point that I absolutely agree with.
>> However you still converse largely with faithers from the more codified religions as if their impossible big G were real... etc.
And I often converse with you as if the Big G isn't real, because that is your default position, which I respect.
It may seem strange to you but in the British druid community I am often portrayed as the heretic, mischief maker or John Savage. The boy who says when the empress has no clothes on at all. I am an equal opportunity heretic and am happy to tear my own beliefs aparts as any other faither's or atheist's.
>> I'm even co-habiting (happily thus far) with a faither so I bare no over-riding malice toward you lot. I think rationalists would have embarked on wars too and imposed their prejudices on others, we would have had to find other "justifications" than [insert invisible friends name] told me to do it. Stalin managed it.
Rationalist, atheistic states were responsible for more deaths in war than any other type in the 20th century. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were just as venal and vicious as their religious forebears. This is why I continue to argue that it is power, greed and money that really drive wars, not religions or politics or philosophy.
>> Your "demonstrable", yet completely undetectable to me, friends are in all likelyhood as far as Ive seen just the random feedback of our imperfect minds.
And I have never denied that you could be right on this. I am one day going to have aT-shirt printed with the following slogan:
The voices say that I am mad.
Should I listen to them?
>> I haven't seen anything from any of the faiths big or small, organisedor individual that passes this bench mark. So you are all in the same camp to me.
In one way possibly but in other we are poles apart. For instance when monotheists are in charge the first thing to leave is tolerance. Not so with polytheists etc.
Anyhoo, good to cross pens with you again
Matholwch <o>.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 10, 2009 by Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist
Hi Pedro,
"*Please* tell me the irony was intentional?"
No, but it's good anyway 
Peccavi.
Matholwch <o>.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 12, 2009 by Thorn- urban hermit
Thanks Jez, for correcting me about a supposed "God particle".
I've been at labs too long.
 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Apr 13, 2009 by ! Astro-logica !
Who needs mass when we've got electricity. That's the real stuff of magic!
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
