OK, so what don't you believe in? Or whatever.brianv wrote: I neither believe nor dis-believe,
Do you actually believe in what you don't believe in?
THE "CHATBOX"
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
Do you actually believe in what you don't believe in?
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
I don't believe in belief. End of.Heiwa wrote:OK, so what don't you believe in?brianv wrote: I neither believe nor dis-believe,
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
If you don't believe in, what do you do in your spare time, when you do not believe in? I know you follow Cluesforum.info on the internet. Why do you do that? Curious? Do you believe in Cluesforum.info?brianv wrote:I don't believe in belief. End of.Heiwa wrote:OK, so what don't you believe in?brianv wrote: I neither believe nor dis-believe,
-
simonshack
- Administrator
- Posts: 6939
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
Heiwa,
You are mixing apples with oranges. I think Brian is talking about creeds, cults, religions and such like. This forum promotes / professes no such things. The thing is, when people can't stick a 'religious/spiritual' tag on you, I have noticed, they tend to get nervous. So I've just come up with a solution to calm them down - and that's thanks to you, Brian!
Next time someone really, really insists on knowing what I believe in, I'll just reply: "I tend to question - not believe. I'm a born-again skeptic."
You are mixing apples with oranges. I think Brian is talking about creeds, cults, religions and such like. This forum promotes / professes no such things. The thing is, when people can't stick a 'religious/spiritual' tag on you, I have noticed, they tend to get nervous. So I've just come up with a solution to calm them down - and that's thanks to you, Brian!
Next time someone really, really insists on knowing what I believe in, I'll just reply: "I tend to question - not believe. I'm a born-again skeptic."
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
What do I do in my spare time?Heiwa wrote:If you don't believe in, what do you do in your spare time, when you do not believe in? I know you follow Cluesforum.info on the internet. Why do you do that? Curious? Do you believe in Cluesforum.info?brianv wrote:I don't believe in belief. End of.Heiwa wrote:OK, so what don't you believe in?brianv wrote: I neither believe nor dis-believe,
What sort of a dumb-ass question is that? I sit around believing in stuff of course! No - I am Cluesforum Dot Info.
We are Cluesforum Dot Info.-
simonshack
- Administrator
- Posts: 6939
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
brianv wrote: No - I am Cluesforum Dot Info.
Well, I can only partially agree with you there, Brian...
We are all Dots on this Earth - and potential Info Dots, no doubt. And as such, we all have the ability to make a point.
And that is not to belittle / minimize the importance of each of us human beings. The sun, for instance, is also a Dot.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
dot dot dotsimonshack wrote:brianv wrote: No - I am Cluesforum Dot Info.
Well, I can only partially agree with you there, Brian...
We are all Dots on this Earth - and potential Info Dots, no doubt. And as such, we all have the ability to make a point.
And that is not to belittle / minimize the importance of each of us human beings. The sun, for instance, is also a Dot.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
Careful, as 'sheeple' already think the ones who use this site are dotty anyway...brianv wrote:dot dot dotsimonshack wrote:brianv wrote: No - I am Cluesforum Dot Info.
Well, I can only partially agree with you there, Brian...
We are all Dots on this Earth - and potential Info Dots, no doubt. And as such, we all have the ability to make a point.
And that is not to belittle / minimize the importance of each of us human beings. The sun, for instance, is also a Dot.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
"sheeple" don't "think" anything - they believe. And therin lies the crux of the apostrophe.pov603 wrote:Careful, as 'sheeple' already think the ones who use this site are dotty anyway...brianv wrote:dot dot dotsimonshack wrote:brianv wrote: No - I am Cluesforum Dot Info.
Well, I can only partially agree with you there, Brian...
We are all Dots on this Earth - and potential Info Dots, no doubt. And as such, we all have the ability to make a point.
And that is not to belittle / minimize the importance of each of us human beings. The sun, for instance, is also a Dot.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
very true. I stand corrected.-
I, Gestalta
- Member
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
I will have to agree with Hoi.Polloi that most atheists and agnostics are not exactly synonymous with the ignorant Richard Dawkins and his ilk. As someone who was a professed, staunch agnostic (my understanding was that the question of the existence of God, itself, was altogether meaningless---so, I suppose you could also have labeled me a bit of a nihilist to boot) for over ten years, I always found modernized, new-atheist-movement atheism to be quite a far cry from the true, unadulterated unbelief that most in-real-life atheists exuded. Atheistic positions often seem to be very reactionary (the knee-jerk variety), though, and more often than not, backed up by a tiny amount of research which cannot stand up to any serious scrutiny from academics---skeptics and believers alike.
Of course, I'd spent countless hours throughout that decade seeking to ultimately debunk what I'd considered to be the manufactured historicity of Christ. Most of the like-minded individuals I'd discussed the subject with were rather uninformed, born-again atheists---those who'd conceived of their religious upbringings as indoctrination; or as being representative of a particular weakness within the human psyche which renders most people dependent upon an imagined caretaker, a default coping mechanism enacted to help one deal with the concept of one's own mortality---but uninformed though they may have been (just as I was), they (and I) very rarely had a problem discussing these matters intelligently with religious individuals. Sure, you'd run into the occasional bias on both sides, but it has seldom been my experience that these cannot be addressed and overcome.
A common fallacy I have routinely noticed, however, is that the atheistic position (regarding Christianity, specifically) is a reaction to the tenets of a flimsy miseducation. For instance, I have, time after time after time, been approached with questions like:
Q: Do you really believe that a talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple to gain godlike powers in defiance of God?
A: Well, do you really believe that there is anything in the bible about a talking snake, an apple and "godlike powers" in that particular section of the Masoretic text? Because, you know, there isn't.
Q: Uhhhh, what's a "Maserati" text?
A: *sighs* Have a seat, my friend.
I'd say less than 1% of the people in this country alone are even aware of this very simple, incontestable fact; and that includes Christians and Atheists/Agnostics alike. Why? Because rhetoric controls our general understanding of Christianity, not sound, reasoned investigation. The entire argument, in the mainstream and in alternative media, is framed by incorrect information being regurgitated, circulated and repeated by members of every side of the debate.
I'm no scholar of ancient languages by any means---at least not on paper---but if I can conduct Hebrew word-studies and compare them with original manuscripts for in-depth linguistic analysis, whereas world-renown "intellectuals" and "academics" claim to do the same, but still persist in arguing against popular misconceptions which have absolutely no theological, linguistic or historic basis, then the debate is obviously bollocks.
Sadly, many people from every angle of the religion debate will never see through this fairly obvious trap.
Of course, I'd spent countless hours throughout that decade seeking to ultimately debunk what I'd considered to be the manufactured historicity of Christ. Most of the like-minded individuals I'd discussed the subject with were rather uninformed, born-again atheists---those who'd conceived of their religious upbringings as indoctrination; or as being representative of a particular weakness within the human psyche which renders most people dependent upon an imagined caretaker, a default coping mechanism enacted to help one deal with the concept of one's own mortality---but uninformed though they may have been (just as I was), they (and I) very rarely had a problem discussing these matters intelligently with religious individuals. Sure, you'd run into the occasional bias on both sides, but it has seldom been my experience that these cannot be addressed and overcome.
A common fallacy I have routinely noticed, however, is that the atheistic position (regarding Christianity, specifically) is a reaction to the tenets of a flimsy miseducation. For instance, I have, time after time after time, been approached with questions like:
Q: Do you really believe that a talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple to gain godlike powers in defiance of God?
A: Well, do you really believe that there is anything in the bible about a talking snake, an apple and "godlike powers" in that particular section of the Masoretic text? Because, you know, there isn't.
Q: Uhhhh, what's a "Maserati" text?
A: *sighs* Have a seat, my friend.
I'd say less than 1% of the people in this country alone are even aware of this very simple, incontestable fact; and that includes Christians and Atheists/Agnostics alike. Why? Because rhetoric controls our general understanding of Christianity, not sound, reasoned investigation. The entire argument, in the mainstream and in alternative media, is framed by incorrect information being regurgitated, circulated and repeated by members of every side of the debate.
I'm no scholar of ancient languages by any means---at least not on paper---but if I can conduct Hebrew word-studies and compare them with original manuscripts for in-depth linguistic analysis, whereas world-renown "intellectuals" and "academics" claim to do the same, but still persist in arguing against popular misconceptions which have absolutely no theological, linguistic or historic basis, then the debate is obviously bollocks.
Sadly, many people from every angle of the religion debate will never see through this fairly obvious trap.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
When I believe I feel sure of the truth of something. When I believe in something I have trust in that thing. So it happens I believe and believe in some things now and then.
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
^^ The way I see it, is that 'be LIE f' itself is the trap. Whether you believe in something or you believe in nothing, it's the same thing. You believe!
I am not required to believe the things I see with my own eyes, edit : ( unless I'm watching CLOWN TV of course, but that does not happen
) I am however required to believe in the things I am told or was forced or coerced or cajoled into "believing" as a child - like religion or the state or "magic" or statute law or political ideologies - all products of man's imagination. I have discarded all such beliefs, which leaves nothing. It's great.
I am not required to believe the things I see with my own eyes, edit : ( unless I'm watching CLOWN TV of course, but that does not happen
) I am however required to believe in the things I am told or was forced or coerced or cajoled into "believing" as a child - like religion or the state or "magic" or statute law or political ideologies - all products of man's imagination. I have discarded all such beliefs, which leaves nothing. It's great.Re: THE "CHATBOX"
To 'religious/spiritual' tag, I would add '/political', specifically in terms of those mind-numbingly stupid and empty pseudo-words 'left/right'. Over the years I've 'lost' or upset more friends by not adhering to that nonsense than my B.O. and nasty personality alone can account for.simonshack wrote: [...] when people can't stick a 'religious/spiritual' tag on you, I have noticed, they tend to get nervous.
I agree with BrianV, belief is THE trap. We live in a veritable soup of beautiful, interesting and ever-renewing information. A belief can too easily become a filter, photoshopping out stuff that might otherwise make your experience of this life much deeper.
Or is that just the trichocereus peruvianus talking?
Re: THE "CHATBOX"
I evidently believe that US president Barack Obama is 3rd generation CIA, whose maternal grandparents and mother (and father?) were CIA based on their available CVs, e.g. Beirut in the 1950's and Afghanistan in the 1980's.
So therefore I do not believe in Obama. One reason is that he thinks he is BLACK. In France anyone with a white mother/grandparents is WHITE.
I evidently believe that no structure can collapse from top down by gravity because I believe in my scientific, peer reviewed paper to this effect.
It is always nice to believe and believe in.
So therefore I do not believe in Obama. One reason is that he thinks he is BLACK. In France anyone with a white mother/grandparents is WHITE.
I evidently believe that no structure can collapse from top down by gravity because I believe in my scientific, peer reviewed paper to this effect.
It is always nice to believe and believe in.