Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Really, you think Maya religion is something people do now? 

I'm saying you're talking BS when you say every religion wants love from 
God. Most religions don't have one God. Most religions have nasty or 
uncaring gods. The only religions that have one God and that God is loving 
are Christianity (some versions) and Islam (some versions). And perhaps 
Judaism.

> Really, you think Maya religion is something people do now? 

Yes. Your ignorance is staggering. The Mayan culture and religion has lasted 
somewhat longer than Christianity. Why would you think it would disappear 
any faster?

Maybe you should do some research before claiming you know the desires of 
deities that you don't even think are worshiped any more.

> but anyway yes I honestly believe Love is the answer and if 
> it's not what every religion says it should; for what I have understand 
> every religion teaches how to love better according to the philosophy of 
> a certain deity, 

No. No no no. *Every* religion doesn't even *have* a deity. There's really 
only *one* religion that has only one deity, with three divisions depending 
on how many prophets that came later you think there are.

> And I didn't ignored the other religions, you just thought I did.

You ignored the Norse religions, Wicca (which has many modern practitioners 
and doesn't believe in the love of a deity), the Fred Phelps version of 
Christianity, etc.

You're basically saying "My religion says God loves me and I should love 
others, and that's a good thing, so obviously every religion must agree with 
mine."  *That* is what I'm disputing.  You are categorically, undeniably 
incorrect in this assertion. It's not even a matter of interpretation, given 
that most religions either have no deity or lots of competing deities, so it 
doesn't even make sense to use the word "God" in that religion.

> You have say many wrong assuptions here but you don't care about it and 
> you wrote that I BS, right, dude, I'm sure you don't have a clue what 
> Islam is about, just because some Islam members attacked you Country, 

You are so funny. Now that I mentioned Islam, you think I'm reading evil 
into every muslim? No. You don't know about Islam, having never read the 
book. However, *you* and not I are the one making assertions about Islam.

> there are extremist in every religion, that do stupid things in the name 
> of their God, that don't make those religions useless, just wrongly 
> followed, 

So, you know much better than the people dying for their religion what it is 
their religion says? Right, OK.

> your closed minded certainties are your own.

OK, what about Wicca? What about the Norse religions? What about Satanism? 
Do you have any idea what those religions even teach?

I'm not close minded just because I point out your close-mindedness. If you 
make blanket assertions about religion, including assertions that are 
trivial to disprove (like "Every religion's God does X" when there are quite 
popular religions that don't have gods at all), you're wrong in that statement.

It doesn't mean you're wrong about everything. You're just wrong about 
overgeneralizing how you *think* people should behave into "this is what 
every person's religion commands them to do."  It's that sort of 
close-mindedness and overgeneralization that *causes* the problems that 
religion causes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I suggest you read more History and look for what is accepted as History 
> and Jesus is, not the Biblical one but the actual carpenter who married 
> Mary Magdalene, yeah, Jesus never existed is just so convenient, finally 
> is just the same you as any another Materialist only find safety in 
> material stuff, any doubt will give you the perfect excuse to deny it.
> 
> Man, is up to you, spiritual things because of you POV will never be as 
> a sign of anything, to start understanding you need to broader it and 
> focus it in the direction of: maybe there is something spiritual that is 
> not clear but it has it's own world of existence that intersects with 
> ours in a blurred way for some reason, because this is apparently the 
> truth about it.
> 
> Also, looks like you have seen documentaries that support your material 
> POV, not the ones that look truly to clear as much as possible spiritual 
> mysteries.
Sigh.. And I suggest you stop reading stuff published by total hacks and 
liars, which ****none of the scholars and historians agree with***. 
Nearly everything in the book was made up. This has been proven by 
"real" historians. The only people disputing that are people who all 
wrote books since the movie came out, and based it on made up BS. Its 
not more factually correct than the claims made, almost daily, by some 
people, about all the fake documents and statements they "claim" 
actually exist, from the founders. Its well documented as to who, when, 
and how all of it was made up, and **none** of it comes from a time 
period even **close** to when Jesus was supposed to exist. Some of it 
may be few centuries old, but no where near 2,000+, and is no more 
believable, as historical evidence of anything other than its use to 
promote some political positions by a few royal lines, than the legends 
of Dracula represent an accurate version of the history of Vlad the 
Impaler. History doesn't work like that. If you want evidence that X 
person married Y person, you find evidence from ***when they lived***, 
not some obscure reference, which was politically convenient for 
someone, 1,000 years later. At best, it might be true, if you can 
provide proof the people existed at all, which you can't. At worst, it 
may be, as is nearly everything ever done by royals in the last 2,000 
years, playing on the story, but not based on a damn thing that is 
actually true.

You have to have a plausible grounds to consider it fact, not made up, 
and that still goes to, "Where is the proof from his own time?" There 
isn't any.

Oh, and worse than all of that. What fragments do exist are not 
connected to each other in any plausible way, by any line of evidence, 
to suggest they at all support each other, **unless** you take the book 
as a valid explanation. In other words, you might as well be arguing for 
the existence of an historical King Arthur, based on the same sort of 
evidence - Commonality of some places in the story, a few references to 
people with similar names, and some stuff placed here and that, 
centuries later, by people trying to promote the legend, none of them 
rising to the level of "historically provable fact".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their 
>> decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" 
>> led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** 
>> that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly 
>> compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to humanists, 
>> to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many 
>> "believers" to believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking 
>> and how they reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not 
>> just claim they reached the result "without" something, but the turn 
>> right around and declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one 
>> should need X", right after frakking using X to reach their original 
>> conclusions. You honestly think that what we get annoyed at is mere 
>> "statement" that they believe in something? Man do you have a 
>> distorted view of the issue...
> 
> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
> 
Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked me 
out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe in 
modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I take 
for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, where 
someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something out, then 
turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and rejecting 
the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another good example. 
Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by performing the 
science, yet a demand and insistence that they need science to prove 
their own interpretations right, which the laughable result that nothing 
they present ever resembles either real science, valid conclusions, or 
even and understanding of how science works at all.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because 
>>> "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent inability, 
>>> of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or recognize, their 
>>> own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, and all too often, 
>>> actually not just claim they reached the result "without" something, 
>>> but the turn right around and declare, "And since I never need, or 
>>> use X, no one should need X", right after frakking using X to reach 
>>> their original conclusions. You honestly think that what we get 
>>> annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe in something? Man do 
>>> you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>
>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>
> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked me 
> out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe in 
> modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I take 
> for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, where 
> someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something out, then 
> turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and rejecting 
> the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another good example. 
> Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by performing the 
> science, yet a demand and insistence that they need science to prove 
> their own interpretations right, which the laughable result that nothing 
> they present ever resembles either real science, valid conclusions, or 
> even and understanding of how science works at all.

yes?....and?...

sorry, what was the context and what is your point?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, 
>>>> because "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent 
>>>> inability, of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or 
>>>> recognize, their own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, and 
>>>> all too often, actually not just claim they reached the result 
>>>> "without" something, but the turn right around and declare, "And 
>>>> since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right after 
>>>> frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
>>>> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they 
>>>> believe in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>>
>>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>>
>> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked 
>> me out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe 
>> in modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended I 
>> take for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, 
>> where someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something 
>> out, then turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, and 
>> rejecting the very thing they just used to get there. ID is another 
>> good example. Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** reached by 
>> performing the science, yet a demand and insistence that they need 
>> science to prove their own interpretations right, which the laughable 
>> result that nothing they present ever resembles either real science, 
>> valid conclusions, or even and understanding of how science works at all.
> 
> yes?....and?...
> 
> sorry, what was the context and what is your point?
> 
> 
Hmm. Would it help you to know that an entire political party in the US, 
and one news station seems to now function in this kind of fantasy land 
of ignorance and blind stupidity? Oh, and that in the state that buys 
the *largest* number of text books in the country, and thus tends to 
drive what everyone else has to select from, has been systematically 
replacing everything they can with precisely these sorts of people since 
well before George Bush represented them, never mind before they got him 
elected to be commander in chimp. We are, at the moment, watching the 
rather disturbing trend that, on one hand, they might actually "keep" 
their power base, and make things even worse, while at the same time 
watching a civil war break out in their own party, over whether or not 
certain members are crazy, stupid, ignorant, or religious, enough to 
deserve to *be* members of the party. Its like watching a train wreck, 
form the uneasy position of someone tied to the train track.

Understandably, in such a context, what seems like "minor" wackiness, 
which only effects a few morons that believe it, to you, is a tad more 
serious to *everyone* viewing it from the same room, as it where.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 28-10-2009 9:49, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 26-10-2009 20:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right 
>>>>> around and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make 
>>>>> their decision was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, 
>>>>> because "god" led them to the choice. This is the thing that pisses 
>>>>> **everyone** that is an intellectual, from Christians who manage to 
>>>>> mostly compartmentalize things enough to still think about it, to 
>>>>> humanists, to atheists, the outright refusal, and apparent 
>>>>> inability, of too many "believers" to believe in, respect, or 
>>>>> recognize, their own thinking and how they reached a conclusion, 
>>>>> and all too often, actually not just claim they reached the result 
>>>>> "without" something, but the turn right around and declare, "And 
>>>>> since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right after 
>>>>> frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
>>>>> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they 
>>>>> believe in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>>>>
>>> Ok.. Example - Some believer says, "I went to the doctor, who checked 
>>> me out, and told me I have X problem. However, since I don't believe 
>>> in modern medicine, I am going to reject what the doctor recommended 
>>> I take for it, and pray instead." You can find myriad such examples, 
>>> where someone applies logic, or even science, to figuring something 
>>> out, then turns right around, when attempting to apply the result, 
>>> and rejecting the very thing they just used to get there. ID is 
>>> another good example. Rejections of ***every single conclusion*** 
>>> reached by performing the science, yet a demand and insistence that 
>>> they need science to prove their own interpretations right, which the 
>>> laughable result that nothing they present ever resembles either real 
>>> science, valid conclusions, or even and understanding of how science 
>>> works at all.
>>
>> yes?....and?...
>>
>> sorry, what was the context and what is your point?
>>
>>
> Hmm. Would it help you to know that an entire political party in the US, 
> and one news station seems to now function in this kind of fantasy land 
> of ignorance and blind stupidity? Oh, and that in the state that buys 
> the *largest* number of text books in the country, and thus tends to 
> drive what everyone else has to select from, has been systematically 
> replacing everything they can with precisely these sorts of people since 
> well before George Bush represented them, never mind before they got him 
> elected to be commander in chimp. We are, at the moment, watching the 
> rather disturbing trend that, on one hand, they might actually "keep" 
> their power base, and make things even worse, while at the same time 
> watching a civil war break out in their own party, over whether or not 
> certain members are crazy, stupid, ignorant, or religious, enough to 
> deserve to *be* members of the party. Its like watching a train wreck, 
> form the uneasy position of someone tied to the train track.
> 
> Understandably, in such a context, what seems like "minor" wackiness, 
> which only effects a few morons that believe it, to you, is a tad more 
> serious to *everyone* viewing it from the same room, as it where.

There are some things that I wouldn't say that way, but the big picture 
is something I am very familiar with. I still fail to see why you are 
telling me, pretending I don't know. As far as I can see there was and 
is no reason for that.
Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
anywhere.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> There are some things that I wouldn't say that way, but the big picture 
> is something I am very familiar with. I still fail to see why you are 
> telling me, pretending I don't know. As far as I can see there was and 
> is no reason for that.
> Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
> discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
> anywhere.
> 
Well, the point of the discussion was the whole 2012 thing, and some 
people's issues with the stupidity of the belief in it. The point some 
of us are trying to make is, well, I suppose there are two points:

1. Its probably profitable, but maybe not wise to keep/make the country 
stupid, by promoting the most absurd and mind numbingly idiotic ideas 
all the time, while, apparently, failing to really grasp how many fools 
will believe it is real, even after the date comes and goes, and nothing 
happens. Most of the modern world seems to have advanced from the days 
when Orson Wells scared people with a sci-fi radio broadcast. The US... 
not so much, and that is a problem.

2. Part of the problem, imho, of promoting the idea that some of these 
things are real, and I do think that running a web site talking about 
the lottery to get seats on the boat *is* getting too close to doing 
that, is that it feeds into a serious problem we already get. Its one 
things to generate an seeming real world, which people interact with, 
for something like the AI movie, which everyone "knew" was made up, a 
bit more of a problem when its something that their might be 10,000 
wackos some place that think it "is" real, and maybe a million people 
that are sort of thinking, "Ah, well, maybe all the rapture people are 
nuts, but I know, from my Bible, the world will end, and if the Mayan's 
said so, why not?" The problem is, too many people want to be fed 
"facts", but don't want to learn how to think with them.

There was an example of this, from a class on religions, where a student 
is trying to sue over, "Being presented with something he didn't study 
on the final!" This is shear BS, since a) he did study the religion in 
question, b) he was given the full quote he was supposed to analyze, and 
c) the expectation was not that he just *memorize* shit and regurgitate 
the information, but actually understand it well enough to say, "Based 
on that set of quoted lines, X, Y and Z would be the interpretation a 
believer in that religion would apply to it." Its telling that, as a 
comment in the thread discussion this silly situation, someone 
mentioned, "Every year, before I start teaching the *very specific* 
field of science, I have to tell my students, "If you just want the 
facts, go home and read books. You are here to learn how to think too.", 
and yet, a percentage of their students **still** fail, because they 
can't grasp the basic idea that they are supposed to be able to *derive* 
conclusions from the facts, not just barf the original details up, on 
command, like some sort of damn game show. There is an entire segment of 
the population that actually seems to think that this is what 
constitutes "learning", and "thinking". Its the same one that will 
imagine that movies like 2012 are "predictive" of what will happen, not 
just entertainment, and have, quite likely, been showing up in the 
thousands to sign up for the "lotto" to get their place on the super 
ships that will "save them all".

The problem isn't that people make such movies, its that they are more 
interested in making money off of the idiots that believe all of it, and 
those that merely get entertained by them, than they are at making more 
than vaguely superficial attempts to point out that its *not* factual. 
In fact, Disney, and their "Atlantis" special, and other similar 
stupidities, which have appeared over the last 10+ years, show the exact 
opposite trend. Don't just ignore the fact that some people think its 
real, count on the fact, and create an entire damn marketing campaign, 
based on promoting it ****as**** 100% real. You can see what happens 
when an entire political party falls for its own constant distortion of 
fact, with the mess we have in the Republicans. They can spin fictions, 
and as is being unsuccessfully argued right now on PZ's blog, their own 
news agencies can even get caught promoting, funding, or even creating, 
the news they want to report on, and the end result is:

a) They start basing policy not on the facts, but the BS they have been 
promoting.

b) When they find their BS conflicting with what the rest of the world 
is doing, they can't do anything at all, except whine about how the rest 
of the world is wrong, and work to undermine the opposition (even to 
their own blindly sad detriment).

The problem isn't a when a few hundred morons follow some wacko, like 
Lazar, the UFO conspiracy theorist. The worst you might expect from them 
is a lot of shouting at a space convention. But, what would thousands of 
believers in the end of the world do, if something happened that looked 
"even vaguely" like rapture, and they all thought they where "left 
behind", like in their damn worthless computer game and books? There is 
more than one kind of crazy, and some of them have the potential to be 
very dangerous, with the right push, further into the delusion. And that 
is without even bothering to deal with the result of (b) above, which is 
1) why so many manage to survive in the US, compared to other places, 
and 2) continues to undermine efforts, along with the promotion as 
semi-/total true- fact, of made up BS, for movies, TV shows, Discovery 
special, Ad promotion campaigns, and even political campaigns.

The tide isn't going to change, until the water stop receding, and only 
someone totally clueless fails to grasp what it means when the water 
**keeps** receding, instead of sloshing up and down the beach. Something 
bad is almost certainly following, and the best you can hope for is that 
the disappearance of the water is the result of a large "sink hole", not 
an approaching tsunami.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Or put another way as, long as you are bringing up points in a 
discussion while I think the issue is a metadiscussion we don't get 
anywhere.

Post a reply to this message

Amazing how far one can go just to counter a blockbuster flick made to 
capitalize on a recent urban legend... religion, philosophy, 
psychosocial analysis...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Amazing how far one can go just to counter a blockbuster flick made to 
> capitalize on a recent urban legend... religion, philosophy, 
> psychosocial analysis...
> 
True. Its only one movie, well.. except for the dozens of Discovery 
Channel non-specials, shows like Ghosthunters, etc.. Oh yes.. And, when 
do you ever see something, "based on the true story", where "true" in 
this context means, "we actually bought someone's story", and, "based 
on", means, "we didn't think it had enough stupid BS in it, so we 
rewrote half of it, to make it even dumber." And, that is without even 
getting to the fact that most books these things are based on *fail* to 
make the distinction that they are "based" on someone else's story, or, 
if they do, they already spent months embellishing the absurd stuff 
someone told them, so it would sell as a book.

That problem isn't the movie. It looks like its going to be a real 
interesting romp into a silly idea, with lots of stuff getting 
devastated, like everything else the guy films. The issue is that its 
being promoted to people who have more in common with the aliens of 
"Space Quest", who thought the "documentary" about people lost on 
"Gilligan's Island" was terribly, terribly sad. lol Some of us would 
like to at least **attempt** to live in a word with a few less mental 
patients.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message