| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Lindley" |
| Date: |
10 Nov 2007 04:06:46 PM |
| Object: |
Prayer "2.0" |
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides at http://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
Many thanks,
Joseph
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 05:36:50 PM |
|
|
"J Lindley" <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194732406.391986.313000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides at http://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
Why in the world would I want to leave a prayer when I consider it to be
*****?
--
Robibnikoff
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:28:45 PM |
|
|
Why in the world would I want to leave a prayer when I consider it to be
*****?
--
Robibnikoff
Do you mean prayer per se, or "Prayer 2.0"?
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:38:03 PM |
|
|
"J Lindley" <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194816525.978578.139810@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Why in the world would I want to leave a prayer when I consider it to be
*****?
--
Robibnikoff
Do you mean prayer per se, or "Prayer 2.0"?
Prayer per se.
--
Robibnikoff
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 04:32:38 PM |
|
|
J Lindley <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194732406.391986.313000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides at http://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Non-religious prayer? A website based on traditional prayer? How many
times can you contradict yourself in one sentence?
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
"Web prayers don't attempt to communicate with
God, but with a Deity of another kind; a body
of annoymous internet users."
"A body of annoymous internet users" is a Deity? Tell my "prayers" to "a
body of annoymous internet users?" Why? I might as well pray to a wall or
Jesus, the results will be the same. Why not talk to my real friends and
family, people who I know, who care, and can act?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few."
-Stendhall 1783-1842
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:25:12 PM |
|
|
My apologies, I've been away from my computer since posting
originally.
Non-religious prayer? A website based on traditional prayer? How many
times can you contradict yourself in one sentence?
Simply that "based on" doesn't mean "the same as"...
"A body of annoymous internet users" is a Deity? Tell my "prayers" to "a
body of annoymous internet users?" Why? I might as well pray to a wall or
Jesus, the results will be the same. Why not talk to my real friends and
family, people who I know, who care, and can act?
Indeed. I don't suggest that you should not or would not talk to these
people. However, why not use this? I think that naming it "Prayer 2.0"
- including the word prayer, has obviously tainted the way that it can
be perceived.
Cheers though,
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 08:42:36 PM |
|
|
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 11:51:55 PM |
|
|
"J Lindley" <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194748956.149990.95710@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
Joe
Are you one of those people who believe in Cosmic Ordering or something?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:38:38 PM |
|
|
Are you one of those people who believe in Cosmic Ordering or something?
--
Steve O
Sadly, no :o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:53:41 PM |
|
|
"J Lindley" <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194817118.966228.184450@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Are you one of those people who believe in Cosmic Ordering or something?
--
Steve O
Sadly, no :o)
Sadly?
You mean you think it's a desirable condition?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"Believe the Bible! - Because all the works of modern science cannot equal
the wisdom of goat - sacrificing primitives who thought that all the animal
species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house."
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:14:07 PM |
|
|
Are you one of those people who believe in Cosmic Ordering or something?
--
Steve O
Sadly, no :o)
Sadly?
You mean you think it's a desirable condition?
Sadly for my own amusement I think. I'm not very familiar with it, but
if I were, I would be in quite a predicament! I wouldn't know _how_ to
argue my case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:41:38 AM |
|
|
"J Lindley" <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194748956.149990.95710@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.\
How nice for you.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:44:21 PM |
|
|
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer 2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings of prayer are integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 05:43:19 PM |
|
|
J Lindley <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in news:1194817461.352131.327190
@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer 2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings of prayer are integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
Atheists aren't big on "feelings of prayer." We generally view it a the
weak-minded trying to wish their their fears away.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:03:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer 2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings of prayer are integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
Joe
Why?
Have you learned anything at all?
Such as to use words in their correct context?
Or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:22:43 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov, 22:03, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings ofprayerare integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
Joe
Why?
Have you learned anything at all?
Such as to use words in their correct context?
Or not?
I don't know what to say about use of words. But I'm learning all the
time, for sure. I'm certainly learning how to argue the case of this
particular project! :o)
Why not try starting from scratch, and think about my project again.
Maybe if you manage to see where I'm coming from, you'll have learned
something!
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 10:01:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:22:43 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11 Nov, 22:03, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings ofprayerare integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
Joe
Why?
Have you learned anything at all?
Such as to use words in their correct context?
Or not?
I don't know what to say about use of words. But I'm learning all the
time, for sure. I'm certainly learning how to argue the case of this
particular project! :o)
Why not try starting from scratch, and think about my project again.
Maybe if you manage to see where I'm coming from, you'll have learned
something!
Why not indeed?
Why should I bother?
Why can't you just tell me straight out where you are "coming from"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 06:35:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer 2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings of prayer are integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
I'm afraid that this group gets so many come ons by troll theists
looking for a buck or to push their religion or outright insanity on
you, that probably most won't bother to go to your website and read it
without a better description and/or reason than you have offered so
far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 10:02:24 PM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2007 18:35:02 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:21 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
What you don't seem to understand is that asking atheists to pray is an
incredibly stupid thing to do.
--
Robibnikoff
I hadn't considered that so many people would take the name so
seriously. Despite calling my project "Prayer 2.0" - and the
traditions, and feelings of prayer are integral to it, as art; it is
not about praying. Surely to anyone who actually _does_ pray - in a
traditional way - they would see its obviously not the same.
I too believe that to pray, would essentially be a pointless exercise.
I don't believe it will better me, in anyway. But my invitation was
not to pray, in that sense, but to take part in my art project.
I hoped maybe more of the emotions generated from posting to the group
would have been conveyed through the website. That would have been a
perfect outcome. However, having generated so many interesting
comments, even outside of my projects own space, is great.
I'm afraid that this group gets so many come ons by troll theists
looking for a buck or to push their religion or outright insanity on
you, that probably most won't bother to go to your website and read it
without a better description and/or reason than you have offered so
far.
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 08:50:03 AM |
|
|
J Lindley <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194748956.149990.95710@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
There is no "abstract concept of prayer." Prayer is a well defined word
with a clear meaning. If you remove the deity from prayer, it isn't
anything like prayer. If it doesn't depend on current perceptions of what
prayer is, it's fundamentally unlike prayer. Nothing could be more
useless than prayer, but your idea can certainly be as useless.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
Writing my hopes, fears, dreams, and confessing my failings to people I
don't know, who don't know me, have no power to act, and no interest in
acting for me is about as useless as prayer. It isn't prayer.
When you ask for comments, you may get some you don't like. In my
experience, those are often the most useful.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"God, that checkroom of our dreams."
Jean Rostand (1894-1977)
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:02:15 PM |
|
|
There is no "abstract concept ofprayer."Prayeris a well defined word
with a clear meaning. If you remove the deity fromprayer, it isn't
anything likeprayer. If it doesn't depend on current perceptions of whatprayeris, it's fundamentally unlikeprayer. Nothing could be more
useless thanprayer, but your idea can certainly be as useless.
If you will, take this definition of "prayer":
"reverent petition to a deity".
With "reverent" meaning "feeling or showing profound respect".
Petition meaning "a request".
And "deity" meaning "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling
some part of the world" or another definition of deity (from Buddhism)
is "[a deity is] often used as a translation for "yidam" representing
an enlightened quality used as a meditation support".
Put those three together, and its a perfect example of how "prayer"
itself can be understood as an abstract concept. I hope that my
project can be seen in the same terms.
Writing my hopes, fears, dreams, and confessing my failings to people I
don't know, who don't know me, have no power to act, and no interest in
acting for me is about as useless asprayer. It isn'tprayer.
I am absolutely not trying to say that using my website is "prayer",
as such. It is a "Prayer 2.0" - it is its own thing. Non-
denominational and non-religious.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 06:39:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:02:15 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no "abstract concept ofprayer."Prayeris a well defined word
with a clear meaning. If you remove the deity fromprayer, it isn't
anything likeprayer. If it doesn't depend on current perceptions of whatprayeris, it's fundamentally unlikeprayer. Nothing could be more
useless thanprayer, but your idea can certainly be as useless.
If you will, take this definition of "prayer":
"reverent petition to a deity".
With "reverent" meaning "feeling or showing profound respect".
Petition meaning "a request".
And "deity" meaning "any supernatural being worshipped as controlling
some part of the world" or another definition of deity (from Buddhism)
is "[a deity is] often used as a translation for "yidam" representing
an enlightened quality used as a meditation support".
Put those three together, and its a perfect example of how "prayer"
itself can be understood as an abstract concept. I hope that my
project can be seen in the same terms.
Writing my hopes, fears, dreams, and confessing my failings to people I
don't know, who don't know me, have no power to act, and no interest in
acting for me is about as useless asprayer. It isn'tprayer.
I am absolutely not trying to say that using my website is "prayer",
as such. It is a "Prayer 2.0" - it is its own thing. Non-
denominational and non-religious.
Joe
If you are suggesting that a deity or 'supernatural being that is
worshipped' is involved, than it's not 'non-religious'.
But you are being confusing, I thought you said this website was about
offering some kind of communication/request or respect to the
population that frequents the internet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 10:22:04 AM |
|
|
On 11 Nov 2007 14:50:03 GMT, Enkidu <fox_rgfszx@trashmail.net> wrote:
J Lindley <joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1194748956.149990.95710@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
There is no "abstract concept of prayer." Prayer is a well defined word
with a clear meaning. If you remove the deity from prayer, it isn't
anything like prayer. If it doesn't depend on current perceptions of what
prayer is, it's fundamentally unlike prayer. Nothing could be more
useless than prayer, but your idea can certainly be as useless.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
Writing my hopes, fears, dreams, and confessing my failings to people I
don't know, who don't know me, have no power to act, and no interest in
acting for me is about as useless as prayer. It isn't prayer.
Sounds like a blog to me.
When you ask for comments, you may get some you don't like. In my
experience, those are often the most useful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 04:03:06 PM |
|
|
Sounds like a blog to me.
Well, yeah. I suppose it is, but one generated in different way to
usual.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 07:37:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:42:36 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
How is it a world apart? What are you hoping to accomplish that doing
nothing wouldn't serve just as well?
Do you expect people to see the prayers and literally answer them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:46:28 PM |
|
|
How is it a world apart? What are you hoping to accomplish that doing
nothing wouldn't serve just as well?
In regard to this.. that is an issue. I had a conversation about it in
my email.. I'll forward it to you.
Do you expect people to see the prayers and literally answer them?
Potentially yeah, but thats not the aim. Its more about getting people
to explore the idea of "broadcasting" in this way.. to a bunch of
people that in the real world you don't have any connection to.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 10:00:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:42:36 -0000, J Lindley
<joseph.lindley@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow. That generated rather more of a response than I thought, and some
interesting points and some seemingly pointless things.
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
Eh?
What does it depend upon, then?
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
It has always been, and remains, a pursuit of the mentally feeble and
infantile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Lindley" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
11 Nov 2007 03:38:15 PM |
|
|
I think the main thing that I'd say, is that prayer 2.0, is taking the
abstract concept of prayer. Forget the ten thousand years of history
about praying, this is something new and slightly different, it
doesn't depend on the current perceptions of what prayer is.
Eh?
What does it depend upon, then?
It depends on what people think of it, which in general from this
group; is not well .... ;o) However there are those that I'm sure will
see what I'm trying to illustrate. Art is all in "the eye of the
beholder" I guess.
Literally I think it is the same thing, but in practice it is a world
apart.
It has always been, and remains, a pursuit of the mentally feeble and
infantile.
I think you need to think more out of the box; Prayer 2.0 is not "the
same" as praying to God, Allah or anyone/thing else. Its a reflection
on those traditions, and is simply meant to provoke emotion and
thought... so in that sense its succeeding.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy 1:4" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 05:20:32 PM |
|
|
On Nov 10, 5:06 pm, J Lindley <joseph.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides athttp://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
Many thanks,
Joseph
Here is a truly excellent mechanism based on that of traditional
prayer.
http://www.sakya.org/PrayerWheels.htm
27,000 mantras per person per second!
Over 600,000 trips to the moon -- and back!!
Just as the personal computer has replaced typewriters, adding
machines and abacuses, this new technology makes all other prayer
irrelevant. Just pay the $4200 + $80, set it in motion, and get on
with your life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy 1:4" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 05:25:25 PM |
|
|
On Nov 10, 6:20 pm, "Timothy 1:4" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:06 pm, J Lindley <joseph.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides athttp://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
Many thanks,
Joseph
Here is a truly excellent mechanism based on that of traditional
prayer.http://www.sakya.org/PrayerWheels.htm
27,000 mantras per person per second!
Over 600,000 trips to the moon -- and back!!
Just as the personal computer has replaced typewriters, adding
machines and abacuses, this new technology makes all other prayer
irrelevant. Just pay the $4200 + $80, set it in motion, and get on
with your life.
P.S.: Note that you must speak the mantras aloud before and after
spinning the wheel, or all automated prayers in that user session are
null and void. To ensure optimal results, I recommend halting and
restarting your wheel at least once per week - otherwise, you could
die unexpectedly and have quintillions of prayers go to the Recycle
Bin. Do it whenever you take your data backups (another function that
you should perform religiously).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Prayer "2.0" |
10 Nov 2007 05:26:27 PM |
|
|
On Nov 10, 5:06 pm, J Lindley <joseph.lind...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've recently set up a kind of social art project, called Prayer 2.0.
It resides athttp://prayer2.net/
It is not run from a religious point of view, whatsoever, I'm just
exploring what it is to pray, and looking at providing a mechanism
based on that of traditional prayer.
Take a look... I'd love contributions, and/or opinions from those
alt.atheism-ists that are out there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm
Pray in one hand. Defacate in the other. Notice which hand fills
first.
I wouldn't go so far as to call meditation "prayer". IMO, that would
be an insult to meditation. People who meditate seem to be trying to
calm their mind. I'll agree that the mind exists. <g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
