| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Xtrchessreal" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2006 02:24:02 AM |
| Object: |
Whatumacallitism |
Is it a religion to believe in what you believe and not share that
belief with others?
What religion is that?
Where is the space for people that believe they can adapt their beliefs
to what makes sense at the time and then re-adapt it for things that
come later? I mean if none of us have the ability to see the future
then all we can do is live in the now, right?
Since I can't know what it is to die, it is unknowable. Any discussion
about what is beyond the point of my death is speculation with respect
to my *self*, my persona, all that makes me who I am, to be redundant.
I can state what I believe happens to my physical body after I die with
accuracy and high probability. My body energy spreads into the
infinite cosmos in the form of heat, food fuel for other lifeforms
until I finally become dust and rock potential.
What is important is that for what ever I believe in, I believe it
100%. So, if I believe I can adapt to whatever comes into my realm of
life I have a paradox. If I am ever changing my belief then no single
part of that system is mathematically certain. This means I cannot
have a 100% belief in my system. However, since the rest of the
universe around me is constantly changing then my system is best
adapted to change with it. Where as, a system that holds 100% firm to
archaic philosophy and culture, makes the mistake of nonchange and
becomes stagnate and unusable.
This is my system structure. I cannot share my personal beliefs
because by sharing those I may influence others to similar thoughts and
then my belief has the potential to become a religion which makes it
moot by my argument.
There may be systems that are similar in structure and adaptation but
none can be mine except for mine.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
19 Jul 2006 03:12:59 AM |
|
|
"Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153293842.135799.171700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Is it a religion to believe in what you believe and not share that
belief with others?
What religion is that?
Where is the space for people that believe they can adapt their beliefs
to what makes sense at the time and then re-adapt it for things that
come later? I mean if none of us have the ability to see the future
then all we can do is live in the now, right?
Since I can't know what it is to die, it is unknowable. Any discussion
about what is beyond the point of my death is speculation with respect
to my *self*, my persona, all that makes me who I am, to be redundant.
I can state what I believe happens to my physical body after I die with
accuracy and high probability. My body energy spreads into the
infinite cosmos in the form of heat, food fuel for other lifeforms
until I finally become dust and rock potential.
What is important is that for what ever I believe in, I believe it
100%.
I'm following you up to here, but here's where I get off. Why is it
important that you believe anything 100%?
From the simple fact that I've been wrong before I am justified in assuming
that I'll be wrong again. That indicates to me that I am unjustified to hold
ANY belief at 100%. It makes more sense to me to hold things at various
levels of confidence, that way I'm more adaptable.
So, if I believe I can adapt to whatever comes into my realm of
life I have a paradox. If I am ever changing my belief then no single
part of that system is mathematically certain. This means I cannot
have a 100% belief in my system.
An argument could be made that you shouldn't.
However, since the rest of the
universe around me is constantly changing then my system is best
adapted to change with it. Where as, a system that holds 100% firm to
archaic philosophy and culture, makes the mistake of nonchange and
becomes stagnate and unusable.
I think that's true of any 100% firm belief.
This is my system structure. I cannot share my personal beliefs
because by sharing those I may influence others to similar thoughts and
then my belief has the potential to become a religion which makes it
moot by my argument.
Umm, I wouldn't worry about that.
There may be systems that are similar in structure and adaptation but
none can be mine except for mine.
Okayyy...
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
19 Jul 2006 05:09:01 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 00:24:02 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153293842.135799.171700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Is it a religion to believe in what you believe and not share that
belief with others?
What religion is that?
Where is the space for people that believe they can adapt their beliefs
to what makes sense at the time and then re-adapt it for things that
come later? I mean if none of us have the ability to see the future
then all we can do is live in the now, right?
Since I can't know what it is to die, it is unknowable. Any discussion
about what is beyond the point of my death is speculation with respect
to my *self*, my persona, all that makes me who I am, to be redundant.
I can state what I believe happens to my physical body after I die with
accuracy and high probability. My body energy spreads into the
infinite cosmos in the form of heat, food fuel for other lifeforms
until I finally become dust and rock potential.
What is important is that for what ever I believe in, I believe it
100%. So, if I believe I can adapt to whatever comes into my realm of
life I have a paradox. If I am ever changing my belief then no single
part of that system is mathematically certain. This means I cannot
have a 100% belief in my system. However, since the rest of the
universe around me is constantly changing then my system is best
adapted to change with it. Where as, a system that holds 100% firm to
archaic philosophy and culture, makes the mistake of nonchange and
becomes stagnate and unusable.
This is my system structure. I cannot share my personal beliefs
because by sharing those I may influence others to similar thoughts and
then my belief has the potential to become a religion which makes it
moot by my argument.
There may be systems that are similar in structure and adaptation but
none can be mine except for mine.
How does it feel to be a badly written computer program?
Artificial stupidity software.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xtrchessreal" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
19 Jul 2006 06:16:54 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 00:24:02 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153293842.135799.171700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
How does it feel to be a badly written computer program?
Artificial stupidity software.
You pose that a badly written computer program is conscious and aware
of its purpose? Further, that it has the ability to feel some emotion?
Under that premise then there is nothing artificial or stupid about its
software programming.
Wait, it just occurred to me that the question is actually a rhetorical
statement targeted at me with cynicism hidden behind a contrived or
artificial sincerity. Am I now supposed to argue that I am not a badly
written program? Should I be incensed by the rudeness of your comments
and take them personally? Provoked into responding with anger and
flare...because that is all that matters...how much flare I can spin
into a meaningless argument.
Well,..fine..bring it on *****!
Give me the best ***** your angry little pea brain can choke up.
Crap it out of your sphincter onto the canvas that is your personal
domain of hatred. Come on...lift those fists to the keyboard...now
bang away. Whats the matter...got your fists caught in the jellybean
jar? Punkass *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
20 Jul 2006 12:34:33 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153351014.379626.221690@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 00:24:02 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153293842.135799.171700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
How does it feel to be a badly written computer program?
Artificial stupidity software.
You pose that a badly written computer program is conscious and aware
of its purpose? Further, that it has the ability to feel some emotion?
Under that premise then there is nothing artificial or stupid about its
software programming.
Wait, it just occurred to me that the question is actually a rhetorical
statement targeted at me with cynicism hidden behind a contrived or
artificial sincerity. Am I now supposed to argue that I am not a badly
written program? Should I be incensed by the rudeness of your comments
and take them personally? Provoked into responding with anger and
flare...because that is all that matters...how much flare I can spin
into a meaningless argument.
Well,..fine..bring it on *****!
Give me the best ***** your angry little pea brain can choke up.
Crap it out of your sphincter onto the canvas that is your personal
domain of hatred. Come on...lift those fists to the keyboard...now
bang away. Whats the matter...got your fists caught in the jellybean
jar? Punkass *****!
What on earth is the point that you are attempting make?
I wish for an adult reply.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xtrchessreal" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
20 Jul 2006 03:34:50 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153351014.379626.221690@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
What on earth is the point that you are attempting make?
I wish for an adult reply.
Your sudden switch play to naivity isn't going to cut it. Everyone
knows you as bitter troll lurking in the shadow so you might as well
come into the shining light and face the music.
Over and over you post nothing but ***** on the thoughts people post
here. I have not found a single instance of grace toward fellow
posters from you. I should have expected this result. One hand caught
in the jar and the other fist clenched with all the bitterness and
hatred, it is no wonder that you can't pound out any real thought of
your own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
20 Jul 2006 12:57:00 PM |
|
|
"Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153384490.183867.129900@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153351014.379626.221690@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
What on earth is the point that you are attempting make?
I wish for an adult reply.
Your sudden switch play to naivity isn't going to cut it. Everyone
knows you as bitter troll lurking in the shadow so you might as well
come into the shining light and face the music.
Over and over you post nothing but ***** on the thoughts people post
here. I have not found a single instance of grace toward fellow
posters from you. I should have expected this result. One hand caught
in the jar and the other fist clenched with all the bitterness and
hatred, it is no wonder that you can't pound out any real thought of
your own.
Oh my.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
20 Jul 2006 08:12:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:57:00 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <4i9u92F2rsh3U1@individual.net>
"Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153384490.183867.129900@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153351014.379626.221690@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
What on earth is the point that you are attempting make?
I wish for an adult reply.
Your sudden switch play to naivity isn't going to cut it. Everyone
knows you as bitter troll lurking in the shadow so you might as well
come into the shining light and face the music.
Over and over you post nothing but ***** on the thoughts people post
here. I have not found a single instance of grace toward fellow
posters from you. I should have expected this result. One hand caught
in the jar and the other fist clenched with all the bitterness and
hatred, it is no wonder that you can't pound out any real thought of
your own.
Oh my.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.
It's only a minor Troll meltdown.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Whatumacallitism |
20 Jul 2006 05:01:05 AM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2006 01:34:50 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153384490.183867.129900@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Jul 2006 16:16:54 -0700, "Xtrchessreal" <XtrChessreal@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1153351014.379626.221690@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
What on earth is the point that you are attempting make?
I wish for an adult reply.
Your sudden switch play to naivity isn't going to cut it. Everyone
knows you as bitter troll lurking in the shadow so you might as well
come into the shining light and face the music.
Over and over you post nothing but ***** on the thoughts people post
here. I have not found a single instance of grace toward fellow
posters from you.
I think that stoney and say Robibnikoff would question your searching
abilities, apart from other attributes.
I should have expected this result. One hand caught
in the jar and the other fist clenched with all the bitterness and
hatred, it is no wonder that you can't pound out any real thought of
your own.
What is your point?
You don't actually have one, do you?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
