Looking for rational minds

[Satori]

Hi guys,

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.

I was here a while ago, and I had some discussions with many of you, and it always seemingly came back to the same thing: "I can't reply to you Satori because of reason X, reason Y, etc. etc."

Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here:

I am here to HELP. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that many of you have fallen victim to the mindless hoaxes of organized religion, which plays upon your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important. I feel that such rhetoric is compromising your intelligence and freedoms at the absolute deepest level, and I feel that that is an injustice that you all deserve to have revealed to you and be addressed.

With that said, if there are any takers, if anyone would like to discuss anything about anything with me, then please, by all means, bring it up to me and I promise to open a honest and open dialog with you. However, if you are desparately clinging to your faith in real hope and fear, and if you are genuinely spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty then please do not discuss anything of this nature with me and overlook anything I write. The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest. I care about you all and the last thing I want to do is hurt you by psychoanalysing you and effortlessly debunking whatever god myths have kidnapped your psyches.

Above all, please understand that I am here with one purpose in mind: to help those who genuinely seek liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions such as judiasm, christianity, and islam. I'm just trying to right a wrong folks, and I'm doing what I honestly believe is the right thing, for individuals, and for the global society as a whole. Please bear that in mind, especially if your intention is to "attack" me in my stance and desire to help.

best wishes, in uncompromised reason and loving compassion,

Satori

[Defenestrator]

That's the funniest post I've ever read.

[John Powell]

SATORI:
Looking for rational minds


POWELL:
Is there any one who has posted at TWEB who does not have a rational mind, Satori?

SATORI:
Hi guys,

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.


POWELL:
Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

SATORI:
I was here a while ago, and I had some discussions with many of you, and it always seemingly came back to the same thing: "I can't reply to you Satori because of reason X, reason Y, etc. etc."

Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here:


POWELL:
Who are you referring to that has a blind faith, meaning, I presume, a faith devoid of any evidence whatsoever?

SATORI:
I am here to HELP. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that many of you have fallen victim to the mindless hoaxes of organized religion, which plays upon your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important.


POWELL:
You feel in your brain, don't you Satori?

SATORI:
I feel that such rhetoric is compromising your intelligence and freedoms at the absolute deepest level, and I feel that that is an injustice that you all deserve to have revealed to you and be addressed.


POWELL:
What is the absolute deepest level of compromised intelligence or freedom, Satori? Aren't you exaggerating?

SATORI:
With that said, if there are any takers, if anyone would like to discuss anything about anything with me, then please, by all means, bring it up to me and I promise to open a honest and open dialog with you.


POWELL:
I'm testing you right now, Satori. Will you have an honest and open dialog with me?

SATORI:
However, if you are desparately clinging to your faith in real hope and fear, and if you are genuinely spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty then please do not discuss anything of this nature with me and overlook anything I write.


POWELL:
Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

SATORI:
The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest.


POWELL:
Is that really the last thing you want? Aren't you exaggerating?

SATORI:
I care about you all and the last thing I want to do is hurt you by psychoanalysing you and effortlessly debunking whatever god myths have kidnapped your psyches.


POWELL:
This appears to be an exaggeration and a deception.

SATORI:
Above all, please understand that I am here with one purpose in mind: to help those who genuinely seek liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions such as judiasm, christianity, and islam.


POWELL:
If they really wanted to be free do you think they would need your help, Satori?

SATORI:
I'm just trying to right a wrong folks, and I'm doing what I honestly believe is the right thing, for individuals, and for the global society as a whole. Please bear that in mind, especially if your intention is to "attack" me in my stance and desire to help.


POWELL:
Shouldn't they be able to do what they honestly believe is the right thing to do?

SATORI:
best wishes, in uncompromised reason and loving compassion,

Satori


POWELL:
Couldn't showing compassion be seen as an example of compromised reason? Aren't reason and feeling often thought of as contraries in some sense?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[dawnghost]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK WHO'S BACK!

good luck Satori.
glad to see you're funny and deluded as ever.

last time you were here it was quite a shame.
I look forward to reading some of your typical humour again. judging from your post up there, you haven't changed a bit, eh! :hi:

[Satori]

Today @ 02:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95683#post95683)
Defenestrator:

That's the funniest post I've ever read.

Thanks, I'll try to maintain the same standard then, so as to not disappoint you ;)

yours,

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95724#post95724)
John Powell:
Is there any one who has posted at TWEB who does not have a rational mind, Satori?

If you have to ask this question, then I'm afraid that you would not like the answer I would give (besides, I suspect you know the answer, and I think you also realize that the very definition of a "rational mind" is an entirely subjective thing, which makes it very much a grey area).

Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

For the most part, I can sincerely answer yes. Thanks for your question. How about you Powell? I hope you can honestly say the same.

Who are you referring to that has a blind faith, meaning, I presume, a faith devoid of any evidence whatsoever?

Here's something which I sincerely suspect you haven't considered: strongly believing in, and clinging to, ANY notion which isn't completely substantiated above all reasonable doubt IS blind faith. Do you disagree? Do you think that a faith devoid fo real and solid proof isn't blind? If so, please explain, I'm all ears.

You say "a faith devoid of any evidence whatsoever"? Not quite. I meant REAL and solid evidence (not just a bunch of inconsist text from a time when people thought that nailing one another to posts was an effective way of dealing with their social problems). I'm talking about RATIONAL evidence, evidence which isn't completely negated by other much better evidence, evidence which isn't so contested by common sense, evidence which doesn't insult anyone's intelligence or relie heavily upon "just believe it" assertions, evidence which is actually worthy of being taken seriously by everyone. I'm sure you get the idea.

You feel in your brain, don't you Satori?

Yes, of course, as do you, as does everyone, something which I feel we can both agree is simply too obvious to be a worthwhile topic of discussion. However, if you feel differently, please provide your reasons for holding this viewpoint and I will either kindly deconstruct them, or agree with them. However, I suspect you are fully aware what I meant when I used the word "heart".

What is the absolute deepest level of compromised intelligence or freedom, Satori? Aren't you exaggerating??

Thanks for your questions. No, I'm not exaggerating, just being honest and dramatic for the sake of stirring frank discussion. I'll explain this is in detail, since it is the source of my compassion for those who were unfortunate enough to have some archaic doctrine imposed on them before they possessed the intelligence and maturity to defend against it:

For me, the imposition of some religious doctrine (ie. judaism, christianity, islam) on the mind of a child is simply unethical because it retracts from the person's ability to effectively *reason*, and it also retracts from the person's freedoms to think/believe as *they* choose. How does it do that? With idle treats of god's cruel vengeance of course. Sure, the kids are "free" to think the way they want, free to be objective and self-honest and not cling to any of the worlds silly dogmas out of fear and selfish desire, but how "free" are they truly? They are also "free" to rob banks and shoot people, but the consequences of such actions disrupts how "free" they are to perform them. I'm sure you catch my drift on that, however, I'll explain it even further, just in case anyone else is reading this and still not getting it (or in case anyone out there DOES get it, but is in denial):

Telling a child that they "must have faith" in any of the worlds innane dogmas, or else they will face some sort of twisted torture, is simply sick and perverse, and to me, truly unethical. That's right, I said sick, perverse, and unethical. I make no apologies about saying that. I feel that every human being should have the right to choose their own path in life, to choose their own unsubstantiated metaphysical theories. If someone wants to believe in aliens and cling to a whacked delusion that one day the aliens will come take them the their planet where they'll be treated like royalty, that's their right. If someone wants to believe that the point of their life is to autoconvince themselves of islamic doctrine above and beyond all reason and kiss up to Allah's frail ego for the sake of their own self-perservation, that's their right too. Or, if someone wants to simply be a person who is self-honest enough to admit to themselves that they simply don't know the answers to the ultimate questions so they aren't going to swallow some foolish rhetoric, that is their right as well. However, if a child has a religion imposed on them when they are very young, that right to choose their own path, that right to choose between any one of the world's many ancient theologies, or the right to simply be open-minded and completely rational and not cling to any single unsubstantiated theory while negating all the other theories, that right is severely compromised. How is it compromised? Because the most common modern religions (jew, christ, muslim) all use fear tactics to encapsulate one's mind into a point of view which is not their own. Sure, a child who had such ideas imposed on them in their youth (as I'm sure nearly everyone here has) does have the freedom to "choose", but that freedom is greatly limited by the consequence of making the wrong choice (and with a consequence as ridiculously perverse and yet ultimately terrifying as "hell", it's really no wonder that so many of these kids will grow up desparately clinging to, and trying to convince themselves of, the supposed validity of said doctrine). As I said, the consequence of a choice limits one's freedom to make that choice.

Therefore, to be perfectly blunt, someone who had some inherently foolish doctrine imposed on them before they were old enough to think for themselves and defend against it (before the age of 12 or 13) doesn't have the intellectual freedoms that they should have. They have been told since they were children that they must "believe", or else suffer some horrific consequence. That's not freedom, not even by a long shot. Perhaps another analogy would greatly clarify this concept for many others who may be reading this but not quite getting it: I bring you into a room with a mirror on the wall where there are 4 cupcakes on a table. I lock the door behind you. I tell you that you must eat cupcake 'C' and only that cupcake, the raspberry one, or else the a blowtorch aimed at your face from behind the mirror will break through the mirror and burn and disfigure you. If you are allergic to raspberry cupcakes, or if you just don't like them, too bad for you, you have to eat it anyway. I tell you that you are "free" to eat any of the cupcakes you wish, you are even "free" to not eat any of them, and you are also "free" to nibble a bit from each one. However, as I said, unless you eat cupcake 'C', you'll have your face burned off. What would you do? Now imagine how a child would feel in the exact same situation. Is that "freedom"? No, it's not, not even close. Apply this simple analogy to the imposition of any of the world's religious dogmas on the mind of a person/child and you'll clearly recognize the trucation of personal liberties which I eluded to.

It's this truncation of people's/chidrens' personal liberties, to choose their own paths in life or else face the wrath of some sadistic "god" who thinks that torture is morally justifiable in the event that they make the wrong "choice", which I feel is an injustice which needs/deserves the chance to be corrected. I feel that no child deserves to have such fear-fueled mind-trappings imposed on them, and and I feel that every person deserves the opportunity to liberate themselves from such trappings after the damage has been done (though I realize that the blind faith in the perverse consequences of doing so will prevent the vast majority of them from ever seriously making the effort, or even entertaining the thought for more than a few seconds, something I find quite sad, but it does not vamp my hope or my willingness to share what I have discovered in hopes that it will help some people liberate themselves from such obvious trappings). I feel everyone deserves the chance to be free, open-minded, and completely rational if they so choose, without the fear of some terrible consequence weighing them down and compromising their intellectual liberties.

I'm testing you right now, Satori. Will you have an honest and open dialog with me??

You are testing me? Interesting, I didn't feel that way in the least, but thanks for doing so, if you feel the need to test me further please do not hesitate to do so, as I have nothing to hide in the slightest. And for the record, I will certainly have an open and honest dialog with you, that is my whole point for being here. I hope that others here will also be able to have an open and honest dialog with me. After all, for most people here, some god character is holding a blowtorch of sorts to their face if they make the "wrong" choices, they are obligated to cling to whatever doctrine was imposed on them as children, and they are NOT free to be open-minded or to be completely honest with themselves about what they really think, their fear and desire-fueled religious obligations ensure this. That's not freedom, that's intellectual imprisonment, and I feel it's an injustice at the absolute deepest level of mind. Modern laws limit our freedoms my limiting our actions, and if you break the law you can have your physical freedom taken away, however, religions take away a person's *intellectual* freedoms, take away from their ability to be completely reasonable and objective, and it does this to completely innocent people and children, people who have done nothing to justify losing that freedom.

Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

Yes, I am. I am free to be completely rational and not desparately/egocentrically cling to any one metaphysical theory at the negation of all the rest without the consequence of some horrific and morally unjustifiable "torture" being bestowed on me when I die. That's freedom, and I think it's something everyone should have and enjoy, particularly very young children.

Freedoms are limited by the consequences of making the "wrong" choices in life. The more severe the consequence, the more limited is the freedom. Many of the poor people here are convinced that god is some sick freak that will horribly torture them for making the wrong choice, or for something as innocent as choosing to NOT choose. Therefore, their freedom to explore and seriously consider other avenues of thought are greatly compromised because of that perverse/evil consequence.

Satori said: The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest. "

Is that really the last thing you want? Aren't you exaggerating?

Yes and no (just being dramatic to make things interesting). Thanks for asking, I'll elaborate. I feel that a great many religious people, perhaps most, put a *great deal* of effort into convincing themselves that their version of whatever doctrine is fashionable in their family/society, so much in fact that it becomes a sort of obsession/psychosis (and with good reason, considering what's at steak for these poor people). I am not here to have discussions with those who are so deeply deluded and fearful of the wrath of their supposed god(s)/goddess(es) that their religion has become and unhealthy addiction/obsession. I feel that such people have enough problems as it is, their faith struggles against common sense and hard evidence are hard enough already without someone like me deconstructing the incredibly frail pillars upon which their various egocentric delusions rest. It's not my intention to further hurt those sort of people, I feel that their personal strength and intellect has been so severely compromised by whatever dogma they are clinging to that there is really no chance of ever escaping it. It's called "faith". So for these people, what's best for them (I feel) is to continue to cling to their "faith", because not doing so would create even greater fears and just deepen the obsession or mild psychosis in them. In other words, not everyone is able to be helped, and not everyone would necessarily benefit from being liberated from their mind-trappings even if they were able to be help out of it. I trust you understand what I'm saying. That's why I prefer to tread lightly and concentrate on those for whom some real intellectual liberation/benefit is a likelyhood.

In this site I see a lot of people desparately grasping onto whatever innane "reasons" they can find to justify whatever viewpoint was imposed on them as children (ie. "creationism", which is simply a sad joke fueled by half-truths and self-deception). In fact, I feel a great many people come here for that purpose, to help them keep the faith, which is so hard seeing as it often goes against reason, against common sense, and against our own morality/ethics. I don't want to deal with such people, I feel they have enough problems as it is, and they should just cling to their faith cuz it's the only real chance they have at some sort of happiness (I think it's better to be intellectually imprisoned and not afraid than it is to be truly free and self-honest). That why the title of this thread is what it is (in case that wasn't entirely evident).

This appears to be an exaggeration and a deception.

I took the time to explain myself further in the preceeding paragraphs and I trust that will be sufficient to satisfy your doubts. If not, you need only mention the specifics of your initial contention of my "deception" and I will address them directly and sincerely. I'm not here to deceive anyone, I'm only here to help, and to correct what I feel is an injustice which has hi-jacked and disrupted many people's psyches. I fully realize that not everyone is able to be helped, and in those cases I rather not deal with such people because I feel I would hurt them by deconstructing their weak pillars of faith, and that is not my intention. I want to help, not hurt, dispite your eluding to the contrary deal Powell.

If they really wanted to be free do you think they would need your help, Satori?

Good question. Yes, I think they would. I think many of the people here are willingly and knowingly deluding themselves because they know no other way of being, because they are afriad of the disproportionately evil consequences of not doing so. However, what I am willing to do is to actually deconstruct their ideas and free them from the sort of half-baked attempts at reason/intellectualism indicative of the bogus religious rhetoric that's going around.

Shouldn't they be able to do what they honestly believe is the right thing to do?

Yes, of course they should. I am just here to question and deconstruct the very specific reasons/dogmas which have lead them on a path of intellectual imprisonment, that is, clinging to "faith" out of fear punishment and selfish desires for some glorious reward (as if an intelligent god entity of some sort could be so lacking in intellect and ethics that it would actually place so much emphasis and consequence on what we little humans theorize with regard to the ultimate questions about the universe's formation and subsequent evolution).

People should be FREE to honestly do what they think is the right thing, and religions greatly trucate those freedoms, of course. I realize I'm just stating the obvious, but I feel in this site the obvious is not so obvious to most people and very much requires stating.

Couldn't showing compassion be seen as an example of compromised reason?

It could. But I don't see how. If you think so, then perhaps you can kindly explain why.

Aren't reason and feeling often thought of as contraries in some sense?

Yes, they sometimes are, but in this case, for me, they are not at odds. What I reason is the right thing, and what I feel is the right thing in this case is the same thing.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

Thanks for your many questions. As always, if you require any further explanation on anything I've said, please ask and I will do my best to make the effort to respond.

best wishes,

Satori
Self-honest agnostic (I don't fool myself into believing that I know the answers to the ultimate questions, but I'm not so foolish or fearful that I jump on any of the many silly "god did it" bandwagons. I simply have an open mind and a desire to know the objective truth behind things, regardless of what that truth may be).

[The Laughing Man]

Is there any one who has posted at TWEB who does not have a rational mind...?

Jim Eiselle. :lol:

[Ryokan]

for a person who is merely pointing the way, you are big on exposition, Satori. The way that can be spoken is not the eternal way?

[Satori]

Today @ 04:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95746#post95746)
dawnghost:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOOK WHO'S BACK!

Thank you for the kind welcome my old friend! As you are fully aware, I tried to get you or Cal to have a discussion with me on a different site, and on this one, but for some strange reason you both simply had too many excuses to not reply, which is not at all suprising to me, in fact, I suspected that that would be the case before I even came here. I interpreted that as a cop-out of course, and I still do. Hopefully now you can muster up the courage to actually reply to me, rather than foolishly pointing out your inability to respond by childishly heckling from the sidelines and name-calling, though I'm doubtful that you will, but I am hopeful that you have changed your ways and that you'll actually have the courage to have a frank and open discussion with me about anything.

good luck Satori.

As you are likely aware, when taking part in such discussions, I have no need for luck. All I need is my honesty, reason, common sense, and compassion.

glad to see you're funny and deluded as ever.

There are several things wrong with this statement:
1) you are likely not glad that I am here again, as in all the dealings you've had with me so far were not very flattering to your intellect
2) It's not my intention to be funny, and so far I've said nothing even remotely humourous (that is just your innane method of holding me as a contender to your ideas, and it's not working).
3) As you can again see, I'm not the least bit deluded, and everything I say I do my very best to back with solid logic and applicability to the here and now (which is something I realize you could never do, since your own theories don't hold up to reason and crack under the least bit of scrutiny, as we have seen time and time again already, and I'm sure we'll see again as well).

For those reasons, you'll forgive me if I don't take your statement seriously, won't you?

last time you were here it was quite a shame.

Indeed it was a shame, especially since you and many other people not only couldn't respond to much of anything I wrote, but they didn't even make the effort, preferring instead to resort to childish name-calling and making excuses to avoid addressing the things I said directly. At least Calvinist made an attempt at one time, and then he (not surprisingly) immediately bowed out when I asked him to address the points I made directly. It was quite a shame, and it gave a few aquaintances of mine some very deep insights as to the lengths religious folks will go to to defend their various misconceptions (and I don't blame you for doing that, considering what's at steak for you and how dreadfully seriously you take this theoretical nonsense).

I look forward to reading some of your typical humour again.

Thank you, I hope this time around you will have the courage to actually respond to me, as opposed to just heckling from the sidelines and forever declining to get directly involved with your many excuses to justify your inability/unwillingness to respond. I hope you will show me that you are now ready to have a discussion with me, but considering your previous performance, I'm not getting my hopes up. I guess what I'm saying is I don't expect much from you, so don't worry, you won't again disappointment with your performance, or lack of performance.

On another note, perhaps some of your friends here are unfamiliar with me and my "humour". For their sake, why don't you do them the service of locating and pushing to the top of the list one of the many threads I started or participated in a while back? After all, if I am really as funny/deluded as you would like others to believe, it should all be there for everyone to clearly see, isn't that right dearest dawnghost? So I ask you to do this, locate those threads where we had our one-side discussions, that is, since you are so seemingly sure that the text contained in such threads actually supports your viewpoint. IF you were being completely sincere in your words, then you should have every reason in the world to locate those old posts, to validate what you said here, so I respectfully request you do exactly that. Please.

judging from your post up there, you haven't changed a bit, eh! :hi:

Definitely not. I am still as honest and rational as ever, and I have every bit as much love and compassion for others as I did when you first encountered me when you were trying to get away with spewing your innane creationist nonsense in a section of my native forum. As I told you then, the reason I completely refuted all your ridiculous assertions (to which you of course, true to form, declined to respond with your laundry list of excuses for not doing so) is because I feel that people need to be protected from such misleading and intellectually corrupting nonsense (ie. "creationism" and that Ham fool from your favourite AiG website). I hope you understand why I did that, and believe me, it wasn't personal towards you in any way. A good friend of mine simply requested that I completely trash your post, so I did. I did that because I honestly think/feel that humanity on the whole, and well as individuals, are much better off being practical, honest, and reasonable (as opposed to being irrational/superstitious by chasing after various, often contending, mythologies). I think that anything which retracts from reason is potentially dangerous to this planet and every creature it gives life to, and history would seem to very agree with me on that (but of course, you already know that, I'm just stating the obvious I realize). I think that religions negate reason and REASON is what we most need right now to help save us from ourselves. With world peace and environmental concerns so threatening as they are, I feel that now is NOT the time to be chasing myths and appeasing the various gods and goddesses humanity has invented. There are much more pressing concerns that need to be addressed. Now is not the time to be divided by race, religion, nationality, sexuality, etc., now is the time for humanity to UNITE, LOVE, and TRUST one another, to be reasonable and practical about our future with regard to what is *actually* important to US and THIS WORLD we call home, and that task is made much harder if most people are too busy selfishly fretting about the ultimate fate of their beloved and supposedly "immortal souls" and the correct way to stroke "god's" ego. I think the time has come for us to do away with such foolishness and idiocy, and with religion slowly going the way of the dinosaurs, it would appear that the world on the whole is gradually waking up and freeing itself from the many delusions which have kept it scared, ignorant, selfish/egocentric, and in intellectual bondage since the dawn of human civilization.

Now is not the time to be unreasonable and generate more problems by us humans chasing after various mythologies and fighting over what is the "correct" (cough, cough) metaphyical theory and the correct methods of stroking the perversely cruel dictator's frail and pathetic ego. Now is the time to identify with our humanity and not allow the world's inherently barbaric and perpetually contending religions to make us mistrustful of one another. Now is the time to realize what's really important to us all and to take steps to remedy our global situation by working together and making the right choices. In other words, I think that humanism and environmentalism, since they are far more intelligent, applicable, and practical to the current state of the world, should be the new ideals ("morality") which people NEED to endeavour to uphold. That's kinda hard to do when people are intellectually incapacitated by some innane religious dogma which was intellectually insulting and barbaric even when it was first devised thousands of years ago.

If this has gone over your head dawnghost, then at least I hope you were able to find some of that "humour" and have a good laugh. Whatever brings joy to your life is a bonus I think. I doubt that you'll be able to respond to this, aside from heckling and avoiding addressing anything I've said directly of course, but I hope you'll change your ways and actually respond for once, and I'm inviting you to do just that. Same goes to you too Cal, I haven't forgotten about you either my friend!

eyes open, take care,

Satori

PS: Don't forget to dig out those old threads which I participated in, so that your friends can also enjoy my unique brand of humour, you'd be doing them a favour, as well as validating what you said here, so you have every reason to dig up those threads, don't you? Please do.

[Satori]

Today @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96379#post96379)
Ryokan:

for a person who is merely pointing the way, you are big on exposition, Satori. The way that can be spoken is not the eternal way?

Great question, thanks!! I seriously wasn't expecting something like this, and I'm delighted by it. I don't know how much you know about this sort of thing, but I'll assume you are well versed in it in my reply...

a few things:

1) The notion of the "eternal way" is itself a fabrication of mind and should be cast aside when it's usefulness has expired. It's just a perception and nothing more.

2) I'm not merely "pointing the way" right now. I feel that that is only applicable to those with clear and rational minds devoid of obligations to cling to various egocentric metaphysical theories out of an instinctual desire for self-preservation/reward/avoidance of punishment. In other words, for such psychotheraputic methods to have a beneficial impact, a person's mind must be clear of all the nonsense (egocentricism, fear, selfish desire) first, and even then, it's really only of value to those with deep mystical inclinations. So I feel it's not as applicable to the common mindset as you might think.

2) Not everyone possesses the sort of intellectual make-up to grasp the significance of the intuitive insights which you are referring to. I think that most people here need to have things broken down for them and explained in great detail, since most people here do not trust their intuitive intelligence or even their own reason or common sense for that matter (they have been trained to negate it in favour of whatever theology was fed to them when they were children).

3) I feel you are jumping way ahead because I don't expect anyone here just yet to accept or grasp the idea that: human comprehension/interpretation/perception is inherently limited and biased and therefore we can likely never truly know what reality actually is by maintaining the common fragmented worldview. In other words, perception skews reality (not something religious folks are willing to entertain since they want to believe that they KNOW what reality is). Most people, including most people here I'm sure, are under the complete misconception that their perception of reality is is WHAT reality actually IS. They think the thoughts in their heads are a pretty perfect representation of the universe, they think their mental maps are perfect representations of the territory. I'll tackle this issue later, because I feel it's paramount to people waking up from the delusions of their senses (and therefore waking up from the delusions imposed on them by religious rhetoric).


I think that before any progress can be made in terms of waking up from the delusions of the senses and overcoming the fragmented and egocentric worldview that a person's mind must first be cleansed of all the absurd rhetoric which is keeping it in bondage and fear/desire driven obligation to a particular archaic universal/self view. It's this cleansing which I'm now trying to do, and though it's quite easy to do, it's also very time-consuming and requires a lot of digging to get to the root of people's misconceptions/delusions. I hope you understand. If my intent was to speak of ultimate reality, which I feel was your suggestion, then I'd have to say: " ".

sincerely,

Satori

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Is there any one who has posted at TWEB who does not have a rational mind, Satori?

SATORI:
If you have to ask this question, then I'm afraid that you would not like the answer I would give (besides, I suspect you know the answer, and I think you also realize that the very definition of a "rational mind" is an entirely subjective thing, which makes it very much a grey area).


POWELL:
I ask the question because I don't think you have the "correct" answer.

If it's an entirely subjective thing, Satori, then I would think that dictionary definitions concerning it are of no use. To me "objective" refers to what is believed by a large population whereas subjective is what is believed by a small population. Absolutely objective would apply to everyone. Absolutely subjective would apply to only the individual. Something like that. For example, I would consider the proposition "the Earth is round" to be an "objective" belief because virtually every speaking person on the planet believes it to be true. The contradictory statement "The Earth is flat" would be a subjective belief to flat-earthers (and young children).

POWELL:
Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

SATORI:
For the most part, I can sincerely answer yes. Thanks for your question. How about you Powell? I hope you can honestly say the same.


POWELL:
IMO, neither of us are as free of these natural tendencies as you seem to think.

POWELL:
Who are you referring to that has a blind faith, meaning, I presume, a faith devoid of any evidence whatsoever?

SATORI:
Here's something which I sincerely suspect you haven't considered: strongly believing in, and clinging to, ANY notion which isn't completely substantiated above all reasonable doubt IS blind faith.


POWELL:
Thank you for your definition of "blind faith". Now, do you have blind faith, Satori? In other words, are there things you strongly believe in and cling to that are not "completely substantiated above all reasonable doubt"? For example, does your significant other really love you as claimed? Also, are you really way above average on the good-bad person continuum? These are two commonly held beliefs by people who should have reason to doubt the supreme love of their significant other and of a lot more than half the population thinking they are way above average.

SATORI:
Do you disagree? Do you think that a faith devoid fo real and solid proof isn't blind? If so, please explain, I'm all ears.


POWELL:
Yes. I think the majority of the contributors at TWEB do not have blind faith with respect to their religion as I defined it. I think this is also true with respect to your definition. Perhaps there are others with this kind of faith, but they don't seem to be contributing much at TWEB.

What you fail to realize is what constitutes "real and solid proof." You apparently fail to realize that your beliefs are not based on "proof." If you disagree then please provide your sound deductive argument that God does not exist. You also apparently fail to realize that the appeal to authority is the most efficient method of supporting belief for you and them.

SATORI:
You say "a faith devoid of any evidence whatsoever"? Not quite.


POWELL:
Fine. If you had agreed with that definition then I would have had an easier time refuting your claim.

SATORI:
I meant REAL and solid evidence (not just a bunch of inconsist text from a time when people thought that nailing one another to posts was an effective way of dealing with their social problems). I'm talking about RATIONAL evidence, evidence which isn't completely negated by other much better evidence, evidence which isn't so contested by common sense, evidence which doesn't insult anyone's intelligence or relie heavily upon "just believe it" assertions, evidence which is actually worthy of being taken seriously by everyone. I'm sure you get the idea.


POWELL:
Yes, I think I get what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, you're showing more indications you don't realize the primary basis of your own beliefs, appeals to authority.

I think the evidence and arguments for atheism are better than those for theism, but the superiority is not as great as you seem to think.

POWELL:
You feel in your brain, don't you Satori?

SATORI:
Yes, of course, as do you, as does everyone, something which I feel we can both agree is simply too obvious to be a worthwhile topic of discussion. However, if you feel differently, please provide your reasons for holding this viewpoint and I will either kindly deconstruct them, or agree with them. However, I suspect you are fully aware what I meant when I used the word "heart".


POWELL:
Well, yes, I understood what you meant, but I found it strange for an atheist to use that scientifically inaccurate term in that way in this context. Perhaps you were trying to speak their Biblical language.

POWELL:
What is the absolute deepest level of compromised intelligence or freedom, Satori? Aren't you exaggerating?

SATORI:
Thanks for your questions. No, I'm not exaggerating, just being honest and dramatic for the sake of stirring frank discussion.


POWELL:
I don't understand. Are you saying that you were exaggerating for effect?

SATORI:
I'll explain this is in detail, since it is the source of my compassion for those who were unfortunate enough to have some archaic doctrine imposed on them before they possessed the intelligence and maturity to defend against it:


POWELL:
Yes. I was born into a Mormon family. I know the problem.

SATORI:
For me, the imposition of some religious doctrine (ie. judaism, christianity, islam) on the mind of a child is simply unethical because it retracts from the person's ability to effectively *reason*, and it also retracts from the person's freedoms to think/believe as *they* choose. How does it do that? With idle treats of god's cruel vengeance of course. Sure, the kids are "free" to think the way they want, free to be objective and self-honest and not cling to any of the worlds silly dogmas out of fear and selfish desire, but how "free" are they truly? They are also "free" to rob banks and shoot people, but the consequences of such actions disrupts how "free" they are to perform them. I'm sure you catch my drift on that, however, I'll explain it even further, just in case anyone else is reading this and still not getting it (or in case anyone out there DOES get it, but is in denial):

Telling a child that they "must have faith" in any of the worlds innane dogmas, or else they will face some sort of twisted torture, is simply sick and perverse, and to me, truly unethical. That's right, I said sick, perverse, and unethical. I make no apologies about saying that. I feel that every human being should have the right to choose their own path in life, to choose their own unsubstantiated metaphysical theories. If someone wants to believe in aliens and cling to a whacked delusion that one day the aliens will come take them the their planet where they'll be treated like royalty, that's their right. If someone wants to believe that the point of their life is to autoconvince themselves of islamic doctrine above and beyond all reason and kiss up to Allah's frail ego for the sake of their own self-perservation, that's their right too. Or, if someone wants to simply be a person who is self-honest enough to admit to themselves that they simply don't know the answers to the ultimate questions so they aren't going to swallow some foolish rhetoric, that is their right as well. However, if a child has a religion imposed on them when they are very young, that right to choose their own path, that right to choose between any one of the world's many ancient theologies, or the right to simply be open-minded and completely rational and not cling to any single unsubstantiated theory while negating all the other theories, that right is severely compromised. How is it compromised? Because the most common modern religions (jew, christ, muslim) all use fear tactics to encapsulate one's mind into a point of view which is not their own. Sure, a child who had such ideas imposed on them in their youth (as I'm sure nearly everyone here has) does have the freedom to "choose", but that freedom is greatly limited by the consequence of making the wrong choice (and with a consequence as ridiculously perverse and yet ultimately terrifying as "hell", it's really no wonder that so many of these kids will grow up desparately clinging to, and trying to convince themselves of, the supposed validity of said doctrine). As I said, the consequence of a choice limits one's freedom to make that choice.

Therefore, to be perfectly blunt, someone who had some inherently foolish doctrine imposed on them before they were old enough to think for themselves and defend against it (before the age of 12 or 13) doesn't have the intellectual freedoms that they should have. They have been told since they were children that they must "believe", or else suffer some horrific consequence. That's not freedom, not even by a long shot.

Perhaps another analogy would greatly clarify this concept for many others who may be reading this but not quite getting it: I bring you into a room with a mirror on the wall where there are 4 cupcakes on a table. I lock the door behind you. I tell you that you must eat cupcake 'C' and only that cupcake, the raspberry one, or else the a blowtorch aimed at your face from behind the mirror will break through the mirror and burn and disfigure you. If you are allergic to raspberry cupcakes, or if you just don't like them, too bad for you, you have to eat it anyway. I tell you that you are "free" to eat any of the cupcakes you wish, you are even "free" to not eat any of them, and you are also "free" to nibble a bit from each one. However, as I said, unless you eat cupcake 'C', you'll have your face burned off. What would you do?


POWELL:
It depends on how great the allergy. If the face burning is significantly worse than the allergic reaction then I would eat cupcake C. I would also think you were an evil person for putting me in that lose - lose position.

SATORI:
Now imagine how a child would feel in the exact same situation. Is that "freedom"? No, it's not, not even close.


POWELL:
The child would still have free will to chose, but would not have free will to avoid the consequences. Being forced into that situation would not be a good example of freedom.

SATORI:
Apply this simple analogy to the imposition of any of the world's religious dogmas on the mind of a person/child and you'll clearly recognize the trucation of personal liberties which I eluded to.

It's this truncation of people's/chidrens' personal liberties, to choose their own paths in life or else face the wrath of some sadistic "god" who thinks that torture is morally justifiable in the event that they make the wrong "choice", which I feel is an injustice which needs/deserves the chance to be corrected. I feel that no child deserves to have such fear-fueled mind-trappings imposed on them, and and I feel that every person deserves the opportunity to liberate themselves from such trappings after the damage has been done (though I realize that the blind faith in the perverse consequences of doing so will prevent the vast majority of them from ever seriously making the effort, or even entertaining the thought for more than a few seconds, something I find quite sad, but it does not vamp my hope or my willingness to share what I have discovered in hopes that it will help some people liberate themselves from such obvious trappings). I feel everyone deserves the chance to be free, open-minded, and completely rational if they so choose, without the fear of some terrible consequence weighing them down and compromising their intellectual liberties.


POWELL:
I'm glad you took the opportunity to express yourself so much. I found some things to agree with.

Do you believe in teaching children about Santa Claus?

Do you believe children should be pressured to do things against their will by threats of punishment?

You seem to be in favor of not teaching children about God or other metaphysical type things until they reach puberty. To parents who believe such things it might look like you are trying to impose your "religious" atheism upon their children. Shouldn't parents be permitted to teach their children what they honestly believe is true, whether it is actually true or not? What social method do you imagine to impose your philosophical views upon the parents of the world?

POWELL:
I'm testing you right now, Satori. Will you have an honest and open dialog with me?

SATORI:
You are testing me? Interesting, I didn't feel that way in the least, but thanks for doing so, if you feel the need to test me further please do not hesitate to do so, as I have nothing to hide in the slightest. And for the record, I will certainly have an open and honest dialog with you, that is my whole point for being here. I hope that others here will also be able to have an open and honest dialog with me.


POWELL:
If it's any consolation, you're passing the test.

Most people dislike tests, so I hope I pass yours.

SATORI:
After all, for most people here, some god character is holding a blowtorch of sorts to their face if they make the "wrong" choices, they are obligated to cling to whatever doctrine was imposed on them as children, and they are NOT free to be open-minded or to be completely honest with themselves about what they really think, their fear and desire-fueled religious obligations ensure this. That's not freedom, that's intellectual imprisonment, and I feel it's an injustice at the absolute deepest level of mind.


POWELL:
More exaggerations. For effect, I guess.

SATORI:
Modern laws limit our freedoms my limiting our actions, and if you break the law you can have your physical freedom taken away, however, religions take away a person's *intellectual* freedoms, take away from their ability to be completely reasonable and objective, and it does this to completely innocent people and children, people who have done nothing to justify losing that freedom.


POWELL:
I agree to some extent.

POWELL:
Are you completely free of these natural tendencies, Satori?

SATORI:
Yes, I am. I am free to be completely rational and not desparately/egocentrically cling to any one metaphysical theory at the negation of all the rest without the consequence of some horrific and morally unjustifiable "torture" being bestowed on me when I die. That's freedom, and I think it's something everyone should have and enjoy, particularly very young children.


POWELL:
Is love a metaphysical thing? Do you believe in love and feelings as poets describe them or are these just psycho-physical things to you or what?

SATORI:
Freedoms are limited by the consequences of making the "wrong" choices in life. The more severe the consequence, the more limited is the freedom. Many of the poor people here are convinced that god is some sick freak that will horribly torture them for making the wrong choice, or for something as innocent as choosing to NOT choose. Therefore, their freedom to explore and seriously consider other avenues of thought are greatly compromised because of that perverse/evil consequence.


POWELL:
I prefer your use of qualifiers like "greatly" instead of clear exaggerations.

SATORI:
The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest.

POWELL:
Is that really the last thing you want? Aren't you exaggerating?

SATORI:
Yes and no (just being dramatic to make things interesting). Thanks for asking, I'll elaborate. I feel that a great many religious people, perhaps most, put a *great deal* of effort into convincing themselves that their version of whatever doctrine is fashionable in their family/society, so much in fact that it becomes a sort of obsession/psychosis (and with good reason, considering what's at steak [sic] for these poor people).


POWELL:
Don't you mean "stake"?

I see you softening your words to be more reasonable, less hyperbolic.

SATORI:
I am not here to have discussions with those who are so deeply deluded and fearful of the wrath of their supposed god(s)/goddess(es) that their religion has become and unhealthy addiction/obsession. I feel that such people have enough problems as it is, their faith struggles against common sense and hard evidence are hard enough already without someone like me deconstructing the incredibly frail pillars upon which their various egocentric delusions rest. It's not my intention to further hurt those sort of people, I feel that their personal strength and intellect has been so severely compromised by whatever dogma they are clinging to that there is really no chance of ever escaping it.


POWELL:
Perhaps your pessimism is justified, but I'm currently more optimistic.

SATORI:
It's called "faith". So for these people, what's best for them (I feel) is to continue to cling to their "faith", because not doing so would create even greater fears and just deepen the obsession or mild psychosis in them. In other words, not everyone is able to be helped, and not everyone would necessarily benefit from being liberated from their mind-trappings even if they were able to be help out of it. I trust you understand what I'm saying.


POWELL:
I believe I understand you, but I think you are too critical.

SATORI:
That's why I prefer to tread lightly and concentrate on those for whom some real intellectual liberation/benefit is a likelyhood.

In this site I see a lot of people desparately [sic] grasping onto whatever innane "reasons" they can find to justify whatever viewpoint was imposed on them as children (ie. "creationism", which is simply a sad joke fueled by half-truths and self-deception).


POWELL:
I see you consistently misspell "desperately." Perhaps that's one you'd like to take note of.

SATORI:
In fact, I feel a great many people come here for that purpose, to help them keep the faith, which is so hard seeing as it often goes against reason, against common sense, and against our own morality/ethics. I don't want to deal with such people, I feel they have enough problems as it is, and they should just cling to their faith cuz it's the only real chance they have at some sort of happiness (I think it's better to be intellectually imprisoned and not afraid than it is to be truly free and self-honest).


POWELL:
I disagree, but let's go on.

SATORI:
That why the title of this thread is what it is (in case that wasn't entirely evident).

POWELL:
This [what was said previously] appears to be an exaggeration and a deception.

SATORI:
I took the time to explain myself further in the preceeding paragraphs and I trust that will be sufficient to satisfy your doubts. If not, you need only mention the specifics of your initial contention of my "deception" and I will address them directly and sincerely. I'm not here to deceive anyone, I'm only here to help, and to correct what I feel is an injustice which has hi-jacked and disrupted many people's psyches. I fully realize that not everyone is able to be helped, and in those cases I rather not deal with such people because I feel I would hurt them by deconstructing their weak pillars of faith, and that is not my intention. I want to help, not hurt, dispite your eluding to the contrary deal Powell.


POWELL:
I now believe your desire is more to help than I previously thought.

POWELL:
If they really wanted to be free do you think they would need your help, Satori?

SATORI:
Good question. Yes, I think they would. I think many of the people here are willingly and knowingly deluding themselves because they know no other way of being, because they are afriad of the disproportionately evil consequences of not doing so. However, what I am willing to do is to actually deconstruct their ideas and free them from the sort of half-baked attempts at reason/intellectualism indicative of the bogus religious rhetoric that's going around.


POWELL:
Ok. Perhaps you would be willing to debate one of them?

POWELL:
Shouldn't they be able to do what they honestly believe is the right thing to do?

SATORI:
Yes, of course they should. I am just here to question and deconstruct the very specific reasons/dogmas which have lead them on a path of intellectual imprisonment, that is, clinging to "faith" out of fear punishment and selfish desires for some glorious reward (as if an intelligent god entity of some sort could be so lacking in intellect and ethics that it would actually place so much emphasis and consequence on what we little humans theorize with regard to the ultimate questions about the universe's formation and subsequent evolution).

People should be FREE to honestly do what they think is the right thing, and religions greatly trucate those freedoms, of course. I realize I'm just stating the obvious, but I feel in this site the obvious is not so obvious to most people and very much requires stating.


POWELL:
I don't think things are as obvious as you seem to think they are.

POWELL:
Couldn't showing compassion be seen as an example of compromised reason?

SATORI:
It could. But I don't see how. If you think so, then perhaps you can kindly explain why.


POWELL:
Reason and feeling are often thought of as contraries in some way. What logical reason can you provide that you should show compassion? Would an absolutely logical entity be compassionate or coldly logical?

POWELL:
Aren't reason and feeling often thought of as contraries in some sense?

SATORI:
Yes, they sometimes are, but in this case, for me, they are not at odds. What I reason is the right thing, and what I feel is the right thing in this case is the same thing.


POWELL:
Fine if they agree, but what if they don't? Should you follow your reason or your feelings if there's a disagreement between the two?


John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

SATORI:
Thanks for your many questions. As always, if you require any further explanation on anything I've said, please ask and I will do my best to make the effort to respond.

best wishes,

Satori
Self-honest agnostic (I don't fool myself into believing that I know the answers to the ultimate questions, but I'm not so foolish or fearful that I jump on any of the many silly "god did it" bandwagons. I simply have an open mind and a desire to know the objective truth behind things, regardless of what that truth may be).


POWELL:
That sounds good. Thanks for the discussion. :cheers:

John Powell

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 11:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95572#post95572)
Satori:

Hi guys,

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.

I was here a while ago, and I had some discussions with many of you, and it always seemingly came back to the same thing: "I can't reply to you Satori because of reason X, reason Y, etc. etc."

Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here:

I am here to HELP. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that many of you have fallen victim to the mindless hoaxes of organized religion, which plays upon your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important. I feel that such rhetoric is compromising your intelligence and freedoms at the absolute deepest level, and I feel that that is an injustice that you all deserve to have revealed to you and be addressed.

With that said, if there are any takers, if anyone would like to discuss anything about anything with me, then please, by all means, bring it up to me and I promise to open a honest and open dialog with you. However, if you are desparately clinging to your faith in real hope and fear, and if you are genuinely spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty then please do not discuss anything of this nature with me and overlook anything I write. The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest. I care about you all and the last thing I want to do is hurt you by psychoanalysing you and effortlessly debunking whatever god myths have kidnapped your psyches.

Above all, please understand that I am here with one purpose in mind: to help those who genuinely seek liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions such as judiasm, christianity, and islam. I'm just trying to right a wrong folks, and I'm doing what I honestly believe is the right thing, for individuals, and for the global society as a whole. Please bear that in mind, especially if your intention is to "attack" me in my stance and desire to help.

best wishes, in uncompromised reason and loving compassion,

Satori

I have never read a post that made me feel as if I wasted about 30 seconds of my life, but this one is an exception!

Blake

[John Powell]

SATORI (to DAWNGHOST):

PS: Don't forget to dig out those old threads which I participated in, so that your friends can also enjoy my unique brand of humour, you'd be doing them a favour, as well as validating what you said here, so you have every reason to dig up those threads, don't you? Please do.


POWELL:
Why wait for him, Satori, why don't you start a new one?

John Powell

[Satori]

Today @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96516#post96516)
Blake Reas:

I have never read a post that made me feel as if I wasted about 30 seconds of my life, but this one is an exception!

Blake

I see you have nothing of relevance to add, and I see you felt the need to point that out. Interesting. Hopefully you'll think of something and let me know, but if not, then I hope that you'll have plenty of other things to say to me in the future in other threads, and I look forward to that.

eyes open,

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 09:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96523#post96523)
John Powell:

Why wait for him, Satori, why don't you start a new one?

John Powell

Trust me John, I will. I was merely daring our good friend dawnghost to back up his statements by digging up the threads he was referring to. And I sincerely hope he will.

Satori

[Warcraft3]

Yesterday @ 06:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95572#post95572)
Satori:

Hi guys,

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.

Satori:
I have found that there are several skeptics on this site that I have alot of respect for and hold in high regard. In fact two of them (John Powell and Ryoken) have made posts in this very thread. Such skeptics, as these, are people I could have excellent discussions with over coffee and could probably become friends with. I know this because several of my close friends are skeptics themselves.

But when you make such statements as "delusional egocentric ignorance" and " self-dishonesty " and then make the sweeping generalization "seems to me to be the benchmark of this site", you effectivaly shut down communication.

This makes people defensive :ddw: and makes them feel like wacking you on the head like so:bonk: :whack: .

So if you want to debate perhaps you should leave the mud-slinging at home or simply not say anything at all:nc: .

A bit more restraint with the insults would be welcomed:thumb:


Russ

[Satori]

Today @ 09:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96492#post96492)
John Powell:

[QUOTE]I ask the question because I don't think you have the "correct" answer.

"Correct answer"? What's that? I'm sure I don't know, and I'm not at all reluctant to admit to the fact that I don't know. However, I do have an opinion about it. I feel many people here are quite irrational, and I have witnessed it first hand. However, that is just my subjective opinion and nothing more, and is no more "real" than the colour green or the sound of a bell.

If it's an entirely subjective thing, Satori, then I would think that dictionary definitions concerning it are of no use.

Precisely.

To me "objective" refers to what is believed by a large population whereas subjective is what is believed by a small population.

I don't define it like that. I think something that is "objective" is something like "the world is round", that is, something which can be shown to be "true" with hard evidence. "Subjective" would be something like "cherry pie tastes good". However, I don't want to get so hung up on the definitions of words because it leads to nowhere. Rest assured that we each understand the other, and ultimately, I'm sure we agree on it.

IMO, neither of us are as free of these natural tendencies as you seem to think.

Your opinion is noted, and I both agree and disagree with it. I don't see things as being quite so black and white, but rather in shades of grey. 2 mutually exclusive ideas can be held in the mind at the same time, no problem, not unlike partical/wave duality in physics.

Thank you for your definition of "blind faith". Now, do you have blind faith, Satori? In other words, are there things you strongly believe in and cling to that are not "completely substantiated above all reasonable doubt"?

No, there is nothing I cling to, nothing at all. I have loosely held opinions on things which are open to change at any time once new ideas/evidence comes to light. My opinions are strong, but loosely held, and I fully realize they are rooted in my own subjectivity, experiences, and even the sequence of my dna. I'm sure you do as well, as to do any less would be rather irrational (imo, of course).

For example, does your significant other really love you as claimed?

I don't know that to a certainty, which is why I don't grasp too tightly to the idea that she does. She seems to, and she tells me so everyday, and her actions indicate it, and that's good enough for me. Do I know this to an absolute certainty? No. Do I see it as very likely? Yes. I hope you are able and willing to see the distinction.

Also, are you really way above average on the good-bad person continuum?

I don't know. I have an opinion on this, and according to my opinion I'm more compassionate, giving, and ethical than the vast majority of people I encounter in my daily life, but it's just my subjectivism based on criteria which I have created and nothing more. Therefore, to say yes or no to your question would be foolish of me, I can only state my loosely held opinion.

These are two commonly held beliefs by people who should have reason to doubt the supreme love of their significant other and of a lot more than half the population thinking they are way above average.

Indeed. I think similarly, the difference is that I don't cling to my opinions too tightly because I realize my own inherently subjective/bias nature.

Yes. I think the majority of the contributors at TWEB do not have blind faith with respect to their religion as I defined it. I think this is also true with respect to your definition. Perhaps there are others with this kind of faith, but they don't seem to be contributing much at TWEB.

I feel that their faith is blind in that it is not substantiated with any solid evidence of any kind. God remains perfectly silent and beyond detection, so it remains in the realm of conjecture. Sure, there are the poor folks who cling to things like "creationism" and "proof's of god's existance" and hold them up as justification for their faith in whatever dogma was imposed on them as children, but I feel this is also blind because this supposed "evidence" is incredibly weak and so easily deconstructed/refuted with minimal effort. Since so few can provide any solid reasons/evidence to support their lofty claims, their faith (imo) is blind. Of course I see what you are saying and I agree to an extent, but that's how I mostly feel.

What you fail to realize is what constitutes "real and solid proof."

I'm not failing to realize that in the slightest, I simply don't feel that any of the evidence presented in support of any of the world's various religions can hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.

You apparently fail to realize that your beliefs are not based on "proof."

Firstly, my "beliefs" aren't "beliefs" like those held by the religious folks who troll this forum. They are loosely held subjective opinions and nothing more, and they are open to change at any; moment. My opinion that most religions are now out-dated and that people simply deserve better than they've been afforded thus far is based upon my careful analysis of the situation, the doctrine, with an eye towards the history of human civilization. I feel it's quite frankly repugnant and vile to be teaching this irrational nonsense to children, and I see how effective this brainwashing is by the determination such people put into autoconvincing themselves of the supposed "validity" of such whacky (and often self-contradictory) points of view well into adulthood.

If you disagree then please provide your sound deductive argument that God does not exist.

That will not be necessary since I simply don't know that god does or does not exist, and I don't even know if such a question is even relevant to human civilization, which makes me agnostic. Besides, that's simply foolish, I'm not the one making any such lofty claims, so the burden of "proof" doesn't fall to me. Unlike most people here perhaps, I don't adhere to a single opinion about that and try to convince myself that I actually believe that opinion for the sake of my alleged "immortal soul".

You also apparently fail to realize that the appeal to authority is the most efficient method of supporting belief for you and them.

Authority? Don't you mean common sense, Powell? For me, it's common sense, I don't believe anything on anyone's "authority" (and for that matter I don't believe anything really, I merely have loosely held opinions based on what I feel is the most likely scenario).

Fine. If you had agreed with that definition then I would have had an easier time refuting your claim.

It would seem to me that refuting what I say is a priority for you, and I enjoy it very much because it gives me the chance to explain myself in greater detail.

Yes, I think I get what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, you're showing more indications you don't realize the primary basis of your own beliefs, appeals to authority.

Again you say this because you simply didn't realize that I don't have any "beliefs" about inherently speculative/interpretive things of this nature. I think that has been clarified by now though.

I think the evidence and arguments for atheism are better than those for theism, but the superiority is not as great as you seem to think.

Since I think that both strongly held athiesm and theism are foolish, I don't really have much of an opinion about that. Like you, I feel there are more and better arguments against the existence of god that for it, but unlike you and most people here I'm sure, I don't adhere to either. I look at it like this: the default is nothing, no god. Unless we can come up with some solid reasons or evidence confirming the existence of such such an entity, then we should conclude that it's likely not real. That doesn't mean it's not real, perhaps it is, I'm sure I don't know, but in the continuing absense of any real support for this claim, we simply don't know and we should admit to ourselves that we just don't know. Given the fact that we just don't know, it seems incredibly foolish to me to cling to either opinion (though I must agree with you that atheism seems to be much more reasonable, and it is more reasonable to most people who didn't have some sort of theism imposed on them as children).

Well, yes, I understood what you meant, but I found it strange for an atheist to use that scientifically inaccurate term in that way in this context. Perhaps you were trying to speak their Biblical language.

1. I'm not an atheist, I'm a mix of agnostic and nontheist.
2. "my heart" is simply an expression inherent to our language to denote sincerity and love, and you obviously read way too much into that. Please keep that in mind for the future. Besides, I suspect you know what I meant, and I've concluded that your intent was merely to find something to contend with.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you were exaggerating for effect?

No, I'm being dramatic for the sake of stirring discussion. But that is of little importance.

Yes. I was born into a Mormon family. I know the problem.

My condolences. I was born into a catholic family/society, which I'm sure is almost as intellectually incapacitating.

It depends on how great the allergy. If the face burning is significantly worse than the allergic reaction then I would eat cupcake C. I would also think you were an evil person for putting me in that lose - lose position.

Even if you liked raspberry cupcakes and wanted to eat it, I feel it would still be unethical of me to put you in that "do, or else" position because I feel you should be free to choose whatever metaphysical theory best suits your mind and not have to worry about some perverse consequence of making the "wrong" choice. It's not like you're hurting anyone by your choice of cupcake or metaphysical theory, and if there is a god, I would hope it would have the intelligence and security to accept your choice and not unleash it's sadistic wrath on you for simply being true to yourself or simply choosing to not choose. To be blunt, I don't like the way religions attempt to trap people with vile threats, and doing that to children, imo, is simply sick beyond words. I feel children deserve better than that. It's this injustice/brainwashing which I feel most people need to confront and resolve, if they are so inclined, and particularly if their religion is hurting them by imposing it's constructs on their minds with evil threats of god's vengeance.

The child would still have free will to chose, but would not have free will to avoid the consequences. Being forced into that situation would not be a good example of freedom.

Precisely, which is why I feel that having a dire and demanding religion imposed on a child before they are old enough to know better and defend against it is a truncation of their personal liberties at the deepest level, which brings me back to my reason for being here and starting this thread in the first place.

I'm glad you took the opportunity to express yourself so much. I found some things to agree with.

Thank you. I found many things to agree with that you have said as well, even if they disagree with what I said, because I don't think in terms of absolute black/white, right/wrong, true/fiction. I totally recognize that good that the imposition of a religion on the mind of a child can have, but I also recognize the down side of that, and I don't feel the good justifies the bad, nor does it justify the truncation of that person's liberty to choose whatever path best suits them. We are all different and we all think differently, so we should not and cannot all be expected to swallow the same ancient metaphysical rhetoric in the same manner. If there is a god, I would sincerely hope that it would have the intelligence to realize that simple fact, and I would hope it would have the maturity, ethics, and wisdom to recognize people for who they are and accept them for it without threatening to ignite their faces with a blowtorch (or whatever vile/sadistic wrath is fashionable to think that god has in store for them, whatever it is, I'm sure it's pretty perverse).

Do you believe in teaching children about Santa Claus?

I don't "believe in" it. I can see good and bad in it, and in this case, since Santa isn't some lunatic who sees fit to torture them because they cannot bring themselves to swallow the Santa myth, then I don't see much bad in it. Besides, when kids get a little older they figure out that Santa is a myth, but the same is not true of the world's various religions... even if kids figure out that religions are elaborate politically-rooted hoaxes (and many do when they hit around 12 years old) they still will have this innate need to believe in it out of fear of the consequence of not buying into it, so I don't think it's a worthy analogy.

Do you believe children should be pressured to do things against their will by threats of punishment?

Yes, I do. However, if the punishment is TORTURE, then I do not. I trust that you agree.

As an ethical person I feel that torture is simply unethical and unjustifiable, which means that I honestly think that the fashionable conception of god is so very ethically repugnant. How people can make "god" out to be such a cruel freak is something I find disheartening and sad, and if there were a god of some sort, one that has some degree of human-like ethics, one that actually thinks about us, listens to our our fleeting thoughts and words, and actually *cares* what we think about it, then I would assume that this god is absolutely horrified that some people could think that it is even capable of such acts of extreme violence and sadism/barbarism.

You seem to be in favor of not teaching children about God or other metaphysical type things until they reach puberty.

You are correct in that analysis. I don't think kids are equipped to handle such intellectually incapacitating dogma and they aren't yet able to defend against it, so I think that feeding them scary myths is unethical. I think kids deserve better than that, they deserve the chance to grow up without such mind-trappings.

To parents who believe such things it might look like you are trying to impose your "religious" atheism upon their children.

Nope, I just feel that a child's intellectual freedoms are too important to be compromised in that way.

Shouldn't parents be permitted to teach their children what they honestly believe is true, whether it is actually true or not?

Of course, and that is how it currently is, however, that doesn't make it "right" in my book. I'm an idealist I suppose, hehe. I realize that parents are innocently and unwittingly contributing to their child's life-long irrationality and truncation of liberties, but I realize that the parents are NOT to blame for that injustice. I'm not placing blame, I'm simply pointing out that I feel it's not ethical to tinker with the minds of innocent children in such a fashion. It can lead to a life-long obsession/psychosis which they may not ever be able to escape.

What social method do you imagine to impose your philosophical views upon the parents of the world?

I'm glad you asked that question. Here's my idea (not that it'll ever happen, but I'll tell you anyway).. I think that theology should be taught in schools, not religion, theology, of all kinds. It's my sincere opinion that if children were taught about all the various mythologies of the world starting when they are very young that this would balance out the bias they are getting from their parents and they would not be locked so firmly into a single viewpoint. I think education is the key. I think that ignorance and religiousity go hand in hand, each fuels the other, and if children knew more about the various (often conflicting) metaphysical theories/theologies in the world then they would have a much more balanced perspective and be much more equipped to make intelligent decisions with regard to their own path when they reach puberty. I think it's harder to be so narrow-minded and adhere to one theory at the negation of all other theories if you are well educated and well rounded. Education, I think, is the key. Another benefit of this is that children would then be able to indentify and relate to people who hold other theories, so they wouldn't feel so alienated from them, they would be able to see that they are just people who are just doing their best to make sense of their own existence in a way that is meaningful and (hopefully) beneficial to them and society. Religions have a tendency to divide people, just like race, and I feel that education is the key to breaking through that division and showing them that it is just irrelevant in the larger picture. I feel totally connected to people of all theories, I can relate to all of them, and I think it's sad that they cannot say the same about me, and some of them even think I'm a bad guy for trying to talk a little sense into them, as if I were some sort of enemy or something, meanwhile I'm just trying to help them expand their minds a little and see the larger picture. Some even have said that I'm an instrument of Satan or whatever, as ridiculous as that is. I think that's simply sad. We are all people and we all share this planet, and I think we should all love and accept each other for who we are, including our differences, (and I think "god" should also love and accept people for who they are, but sadly, according to the various dogmas still circulating, god is incapable of such selfless wisdom and compassion - and that my friend is what is most sad in all of this. How can people be loving and accepting of people of different theories if their god, who they look up to and want to emulate, cannot do so? I think people need to come up with a conception of a god that is more wise, more practical, more loving, more compassionate, and above all, more accepting of people and their differences).


If it's any consolation, you're passing the test.

Most people dislike tests, so I hope I pass yours.

I didn't feel like I was being tested, and I'm not testing you, I'm just being as open, honest, and compassionate as I can be.


Is love a metaphysical thing? Do you believe in love and feelings as poets describe them or are these just psycho-physical things to you or what?

I go with the obvious, emotions are creations of mind and inherently derived from and tied to the physical brain, they cannot exist independent of the brain, and if that can, that is as of yet completely unproven.

Don't you mean "stake"?

I fail to see what pointing out my spelling errors accomplishes, perhaps you can explain?

Perhaps your pessimism is justified, but I'm currently more optimistic.

I'm not pessimistic, I see the world is gradually waking up from the harmful and disturbing delusions of the past, and I feel the internet is playing a huge role in that. As I said, education is the key, we now exist in a global society and we are mingling more than ever, it's becoming harder to remain in the little bubbles of "we are right and everyone else is wrong" that lead to people becoming segregated and mistrustful of one another. Increased traval freedom also means we are getting tastes of other cultures and idea and realizing that there are many god theories out there, which helps us put our own theories in the proper context. Education expands the mind. I realize that places like Austrailia and the southern US, and especially places like Saudi Arabia are still a little backward with regard to their respective religious bubbles/ignorance, but eventually these places too will become much more multi-cultural and globally aware and have their overall intellects expanded through education and experience with opposing viewpoints (it will just take a little longer).

I believe I understand you, but I think you are too critical.

Opinion noted.

I see you consistently misspell "desperately." Perhaps that's one you'd like to take note of.

Thanks, but I feel taking the time to point out misspellings, though appreciated, is quite petty and achieves very little. So I'll save you some time and tell you flat out that I do not know how to spell every single word I use, and quite frankly I don't care enough about that to run my stuff through spell-checker. I hope you will be able to accept that and overlook it, as I will kindly overlook any errors in your posts.

I now believe your desire is more to help than I previously thought.

Thank you. I simply care about people a great deal and I feel they deserve better than they've been give. They deserve the freedom to choose their own metaphysical theories, regardless of how whacky, baseless, or ethically repugant it may be to anyone else. So long as the obey the law and are nice people, that's what's really counts. Everything else is fluff.

Ok. Perhaps you would be willing to debate one of them?

Of course, though I don't know how much of a debate it would be. Anyone who is capable of holding a discussion with me about this would realize they have nothing but highly speculative "evidence" and intellectualized conjecture to go on, and they don't need me to point it out to them, but I'll bite nonetheless.

I don't think things are as obvious as you seem to think they are.

I agree, what's obvious to me or you is not so obvious to most people. That's why I am here, to state the obvious, because I feel it needs stating.

Reason and feeling are often thought of as contraries in some way. What logical reason can you provide that you should show compassion? Would an absolutely logical entity be compassionate or coldly logical?

I'm afraid don't see the value of this sort of discussion. Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel such pure conjecture is worthy of discussion. I'm sorry, to me, it's simply pointless word play where people debate the definitions of words rather than ideas.


Fine if they agree, but what if they don't? Should you follow your reason or your feelings if there's a disagreement between the two?

I think it's best to weigh them both, because they are both relevant. However, I also feel that reason is usually more reliable than emotion when it comes to making decisions (just my opinion, that's all).

I've enjoyed this very much John. Thank you.

sincerely,

Satori

[Satori]

Ok guys, it's been entertaining, but I must depart for the evening. I hope to find some time to continue this tommorow, but if not, I'll return on Friday, and failing that, I'll probably be back on Tuesday (monday is a holiday, yeaa!!).

I sincerely love and care for you all and I only want what's best for you and the world, regardless of what that is. I'm am also open to the "objective" truth behind life's most perplexing questions, regardless of what that is. I feel now is the time to be practical and reasonable, and to not allow our petty religious differences to divide us further and create more anarchy and mistrust. Do not cling too tightly to any single point of view, and please do not fear the unknown. If you truly believe in a theory about a god or gods then I hope you will also attribute only ethical, respectable, and loving qualities to those gods. Leave the fear and sick vengeance in the dark ages where it belongs, for your sake, and the sake of your children and the future of this entire planet. Fear and desparation leads to people behaving irrationally and uncompassionately, and we've had enough of that already. Now is the time to be loving, compassionate, practical, and reasonable, now is the time to recognize what is truly important, and if there is a god out there then I hope you will someday come to trust that it has the maturity and wisdom to recognize this as well.

In other words, as I have said before:
Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are virtues we should ALL envdeavour to hold (and that includes "god" as well, after all, if lowly humans like us are capable of such selfless and kind virtures then you gotta believe that your god is capable of it as well, and if you don't, then I think you need to either reevalute you metaphysical theories or abandon them all together in favour of ones that are more kind and loving).

eyes and heart completely open, with the best of wishes,

Satori

[geebob]

attention Defenestrator, dawnghost, and Blake Reas


We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.


Some might question the consistency in allowing Satori's topic to stand while editing very similar remarks he made in other forums as well as inflammatory remarks not made by him but by others in this thread. Well here it isn't off topic and it isn't merely inflammatory comments. And some of these comments of his are subject to rational challenge (as they have been). However, the decision to let this topic is still subject to change.

[dizzle]

And my nomination of John for Member of the Month is validated in spades.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I ask the question because I don't think you have the "correct" answer.

SATORI:
"Correct answer"? What's that? I'm sure I don't know, and I'm not at all reluctant to admit to the fact that I don't know. However, I do have an opinion about it. I feel many people here are quite irrational, and I have witnessed it first hand. However, that is just my subjective opinion and nothing more, and is no more "real" than the colour green or the sound of a bell.


POWELL:
Rational to me means using reason, coming up with reasons to believe, especially using the ordered thinking of logic. Even those people you consider "irrational" do that, but perhaps not as much as you do. I would prefer you call them "less rational" rather than "irrational." Of course, you have free will to do what you want.

POWELL:
If it's an entirely subjective thing, Satori, then I would think that dictionary definitions concerning it are of no use.

SATORI:
Precisely.


POWELL:
That was not the correct answer. If dictionary definitions of the meanings of words are of no use then how can we reliably communicate using words?

POWELL:
To me "objective" refers to what is believed by a large population whereas subjective is what is believed by a small population.

SATORI:
I don't define it like that. I think something that is "objective" is something like "the world is round", that is, something which can be shown to be "true" with hard evidence.


POWELL:
Well it "can be shown with hard evidence" that there's a God. All God has to do is make His appearance, right? So, given your definition the existence of God is something objective. Just because God hasn't done this doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

SATORI:
"Subjective" would be something like "cherry pie tastes good". However, I don't want to get so hung up on the definitions of words because it leads to nowhere. Rest assured that we each understand the other, and ultimately, I'm sure we agree on it.


POWELL:
Perhaps.

POWELL:
Thank you for your definition of "blind faith". Now, do you have blind faith, Satori? In other words, are there things you strongly believe in and cling to that are not "completely substantiated above all reasonable doubt"?

SATORI:
No, there is nothing I cling to, nothing at all.


POWELL:
How about the belief that you exist? Better yet, don't you cling to the belief that your current crusade is good?

POWELL:
These are two commonly held beliefs by people who should have reason to doubt the supreme love of their significant other and of a lot more than half the population thinking they are way above average.

SATORI:
Indeed. I think similarly, the difference is that I don't cling to my opinions too tightly because I realize my own inherently subjective/bias nature.


POWELL:
You seem to have a provisional belief about most things. I like that.

POWELL:
What you fail to realize is what constitutes "real and solid proof."

SATORI:
I'm not failing to realize that in the slightest, I simply don't feel that any of the evidence presented in support of any of the world's various religions can hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.


POWELL:
I see. I would like to see you debate this with someone.

POWELL:
You apparently fail to realize that your beliefs are not based on "proof."

SATORI:
Firstly, my "beliefs" aren't "beliefs" like those held by the religious folks who troll this forum.


POWELL:
What is a troll to you?

POWELL:
If you disagree then please provide your sound deductive argument that God does not exist.

SATORI:
That will not be necessary since I simply don't know that god does or does not exist, and I don't even know if such a question is even relevant to human civilization, which makes me agnostic.


POWELL:
Oops, I thought you were a self-declared atheist. What do you think an atheist is and why do you think such a term does not apply to you?

POWELL:
You also apparently fail to realize that the appeal to authority is the most efficient method of supporting belief for you and them.

SATORI:
Authority? Don't you mean common sense, Powell?


POWELL:
No. It's common sense to trust expert authorities, but common sense includes more than that.

SATORI:
For me, it's common sense, I don't believe anything on anyone's "authority" (and for that matter I don't believe anything really, I merely have loosely held opinions based on what I feel is the most likely scenario).


POWELL:
You don't seem to realize that "belief" and "opinion" are synonyms.

Do you believe, on the authority of my words, that what I claim to be my opinions really are? Do you believe that Apollo 11 really landed on the Moon? Why, if not on authority?

POWELL:
Fine. If you had agreed with that definition then I would have had an easier time refuting your claim.

SATORI:
It would seem to me that refuting what I say is a priority for you, and I enjoy it very much because it gives me the chance to explain myself in greater detail.


POWELL:
I perceived you to be someone who spoke too much without thinking carefully enough. My estimation of you is improving. Perhaps your opinion of me is not.

POWELL
I think the evidence and arguments for atheism are better than those for theism, but the superiority is not as great as you seem to think.

SATORI:
Since I think that both strongly held athiesm and theism are foolish, I don't really have much of an opinion about that.


POWELL:
Do you also think strongly held aSantaism is foolish? That is, do you think it's foolish to strongly believe that Santa Claus, as usually described, does not exist? If you don't think that's foolish, why do you think strongly held atheism is foolish?

SATORI:
Like you, I feel there are more and better arguments against the existence of god that for it, but unlike you and most people here I'm sure, I don't adhere to either. I look at it like this: the default is nothing, no god.


POWELL:
Then does your common sense also suggest that the default is nothing, no universe?

SATORI:
Unless we can come up with some solid reasons or evidence confirming the existence of such such an entity, then we should conclude that it's likely not real. That doesn't mean it's not real, perhaps it is, I'm sure I don't know, but in the continuing absense of any real support for this claim, we simply don't know and we should admit to ourselves that we just don't know. Given the fact that we just don't know, it seems incredibly foolish to me to cling to either opinion (though I must agree with you that atheism seems to be much more reasonable, and it is more reasonable to most people who didn't have some sort of theism imposed on them as children).


POWELL:
You seem to be using an incorrect definition of atheism. Do you think an atheist is someone who claims to absolutely know that God does not exist?

POWELL:
Well, yes, I understood what you meant, but I found it strange for an atheist to use that scientifically inaccurate term in that way in this context. Perhaps you were trying to speak their Biblical language.

SATORI:
1. I'm not an atheist, I'm a mix of agnostic and nontheist.


POWELL:
Oops, my mistake. However, you don't seem to realize that non-theist and a-theist are the same thing. An a-theist is "not a theist."

SATORI:
2. "my heart" is simply an expression inherent to our language to denote sincerity and love, and you obviously read way too much into that. Please keep that in mind for the future. Besides, I suspect you know what I meant, and I've concluded that your intent was merely to find something to contend with.


POWELL:
It's part of our language largely because the inaccurate physiological beliefs of the writers of the Bible are part of our language. I would like to see this linguistic support of superstition reduced.

POWELL:
Do you believe in teaching children about Santa Claus?

SATORI:
I don't "believe in" it.


POWELL:
You seem to have an incorrect understanding of what "believe" means. Do you think, is it your opinion, your view, that it is ok to teach children about Santa Claus?

SATORI:
I can see good and bad in it, and in this case, since Santa isn't some lunatic who sees fit to torture them because they cannot bring themselves to swallow the Santa myth, then I don't see much bad in it.

POWELL:
Do you plan to teach your children to believe in Santa Claus?

SATORI:
Besides, when kids get a little older they figure out that Santa is a myth, but the same is not true of the world's various religions... even if kids figure out that religions are elaborate politically-rooted hoaxes (and many do when they hit around 12 years old) they still will have this innate need to believe in it out of fear of the consequence of not buying into it, so I don't think it's a worthy analogy.


POWELL:
I think it's a worthy analogy. An important difference is that even adults believe in God, but they don't believe in Santa Claus. God is a more difficult concept to discard.

POWELL:
You seem to be in favor of not teaching children about God or other metaphysical type things until they reach puberty.

SATORI:
You are correct in that analysis. I don't think kids are equipped to handle such intellectually incapacitating dogma and they aren't yet able to defend against it, so I think that feeding them scary myths is unethical. I think kids deserve better than that, they deserve the chance to grow up without such mind-trappings.


POWELL:
Is it good for children to believe in monsters?

Can't children overcome the mind-trappings of their childhood? You and I seemed to have succeeded at that.

POWELL:
What social method do you imagine to impose your philosophical views upon the parents of the world?

SATORI:
I'm glad you asked that question. Here's my idea (not that it'll ever happen, but I'll tell you anyway).. I think that theology should be taught in schools, not religion, theology, of all kinds. It's my sincere opinion that if children were taught about all the various mythologies of the world starting when they are very young that this would balance out the bias they are getting from their parents and they would not be locked so firmly into a single viewpoint.


POWELL:
I think you would benefit from a class or good book on child development (so would I). I'm no expert, but I don't think children are equipped to deal with that until maybe high school. Young children seem to require a single consistent belief system.

SATORI:
I think education is the key.


POWELL:
Remember you said that.

POWELL:
Is love a metaphysical thing? Do you believe in love and feelings as poets describe them or are these just psycho-physical things to you or what?

SATORI:
I go with the obvious, emotions are creations of mind and inherently derived from and tied to the physical brain, they cannot exist independent of the brain, and if that can, that is as of yet completely unproven.


POWELL:
If you go with the obvious why did you ever deny your theism? Wasn't it obvious to you that God existed?

POWELL:
Don't you mean "stake"?

SATORI:
I fail to see what pointing out my spelling errors accomplishes, perhaps you can explain?


POWELL:
Education. Improved communication. Common sense: if you write poorly then your ideas will be less accepted than if you write well.

POWELL:
I see you consistently misspell "desperately." Perhaps that's one you'd like to take note of.

SATORI:
Thanks, but I feel taking the time to point out misspellings, though appreciated, is quite petty and achieves very little.


POWELL:
I don't think you appreciate it.

Perhaps you think your spelling is at an acceptable level right now, that other people need an education about things like their religious views, but you don't need a language education. Is that your view?

SATORI:
So I'll save you some time and tell you flat out that I do not know how to spell every single word I use, and quite frankly I don't care enough about that to run my stuff through spell-checker. I hope you will be able to accept that and overlook it, as I will kindly overlook any errors in your posts.


POWELL:
It's too bad that spell checkers are as accessible as they are yet people still won't use them. I'll admit that I sometimes don't too, but I'm more careful than most about my writing.

I have found that when I read carefully enough to catch my own spelling mistakes and those of my correspondent then I also better understand what is being said. Perhaps you would find the same to be the case.

POWELL:
I don't think things are as obvious as you seem to think they are. "

SATORI:
I agree, what's obvious to me or you is not so obvious to most people. That's why I am here, to state the obvious, because I feel it needs stating.


POWELL:
You seem to have an incorrect understanding of what is obvious. If something were obvious you wouldn't need to state it, because it would be obvious.

POWELL:
Reason and feeling are often thought of as contraries in some way. What logical reason can you provide that you should show compassion? Would an absolutely logical entity be compassionate or coldly logical?

SATORI:
I'm afraid don't see the value of this sort of discussion. Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel such pure conjecture is worthy of discussion. I'm sorry, to me, it's simply pointless word play where people debate the definitions of words rather than ideas.


POWELL:
You were joining two typical contraries as if they weren't. You were saying something like you were doing this due to reason and compassion. I suspected that you were saying other things that you didn't think clearly enough about and saw this as a possible example of that tendency.

POWELL:
Fine if they agree, but what if they don't? Should you follow your reason or your feelings if there's a disagreement between the two?

SATORI:
I think it's best to weigh them both, because they are both relevant. However, I also feel that reason is usually more reliable than emotion when it comes to making decisions (just my opinion, that's all).


POWELL:
Ok, so if reason and feelings disagree then you should choose reason because it's usually more reliable, is that it? Do you live by this or do you often choose feelings over reason when there's a disagreement?

SATORI:
I've enjoyed this very much John. Thank you.


POWELL:
Likewise. I'm getting to understand you much better I think.

John Powell

[Defenestrator]

geebob:

attention Defenestrator, dawnghost, and Blake Reas


We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.


Some might question the consistency in allowing Satori's topic to stand while editing very similar remarks he made in other forums as well as inflammatory remarks not made by him but by others in this thread. Well here it isn't off topic and it isn't merely inflammatory comments. And some of these comments of his are subject to rational challenge (as they have been). However, the decision to let this topic is still subject to change.

I'm sorry if I broke the rules. I didn't think I was being rude, though. I thought his post was funny. I find it humorous when people come in implying how rational they are and irrational you are and then they make statements like this:

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.

without giving any reasons for such views. And I thought the language that he used was funny:

mindless hoaxes ... your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important ... compromising your intelligence and freedoms ... spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty ... removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest ... liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions

implying that those who are "clinging to their faith" are all those things. And I thought that was funny. And then he said he wanted:

to open a honest and open dialog with you

And I thought, "Well, he certainly is being honest and open." I doubt anybody would make all that up if they didn't actually believe that. And I thought that was funny.

And Satori didn't seem too offended when he replied to me.

[geebob]

I didn't think I was being rude, though...And Satori didn't seem too offended when he replied to me.

refer to the rule I posted, specifically the part about "potentially inflammatory characterization". You may not have been inentionally rude and it may not have inflamed, but it certainly had potential.

I'm sorry if I broke the rules. I didn't think I was being rude, though.

don't sweet it, it's not personal.

without giving any reasons for such views.

The point of Satori's topic seems to be that he is our buddy and here to help. His reason is that we are diluted. We can't always provide reasons for our reasons. But if you want to challenge him to back that up, then I don't see that it is out of the range for this topic.

I would ask that there be no further discussion of the moderation of this thread.

Please respect any comments/warnings by the Moderators. Any grievances with their action should be addressed to the Forum Administrators in Private Message, Email or in the Dean’s Office. If you feel you must repetitively complain... please take it to the Janitor's Closet.

If you start a thread in the Dean's office or Janitor's closet with regard to this thread, please pm me with a link as I do not regularly check those forums.

[Satori]

Today @ 01:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96783#post96783)
geebob:

attention Defenestrator, dawnghost, and Blake Reas


We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog.


Some might question the consistency in allowing Satori's topic to stand while editing very similar remarks he made in other forums as well as inflammatory remarks not made by him but by others in this thread. Well here it isn't off topic and it isn't merely inflammatory comments. And some of these comments of his are subject to rational challenge (as they have been). However, the decision to let this topic is still subject to change.

??

Attention Theology Web Overlords: Relax. In my opinion, freedom of speech is more important than the over-enthusiasm of enforcing the super-strict guidelines. Let the people talk. If anyone goes over the edge, correct it, but I fail to see how anyone has done that just far. Tempers flair, I fully realize how dreadfully seriously most of you here take this stuff, but slow down, take a breather, and KEEP YOUR EYE ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT. My 2 cents. Relax guys, geeeze.

Thanks,

Satori

[dawnghost]

Yesterday @ 04:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95746#post95746)
dawnghost:

* edited by a moderator *

oh my Golly!* I have been edited by a moderator!
:shocked: :smile:

*edited by by a moderator

Yesterday @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=96395#post96395)
Satori:
PS: Don't forget to dig out those old threads which I participated in, so that your friends can also enjoy my unique brand of humour, you'd be doing them a favour, as well as validating what you said here, so you have every reason to dig up those threads, don't you? Please do.

I sure as heck will!

Satori: open debate challenge (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1037&highlight=satori)

please note that you didn't quite respond to my last post in that old thread posted above. thank you. :ahem:

[dawnghost]

Today @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97575#post97575)
dawnghost:
please note that you didn't quite respond to my last post in that old thread posted above. thank you. :ahem:

and by the way
I may not have the time to join the debate anymore, I hardly have any time to read the threads I find interesting here, let alone post refutations to Satori's usually lengthy posts.

so, he asked me to bring the old thread from the dead. I did it to show that while he claimed that Calvinist and I copped out from the discussion, it was actually when I proposed a resolution for us to discuss that Satori disappeared.

[geebob]

Satori, I'm going to let your post stand although I have stated, (quoting the rule of the forum) that there is to be no more discussion of the moderation. I'm doing so as you are the topic starter and the topic starter has a significant degree of control over, so I feel it is prudent to explain why inspite of your defense of detractors, I am not going to undo the edits or allow similar discussion to continue.

As for free speech, This is a community of rules, rules that I think are good rules of course and those posts were in explicit violation of one of the rules, they were inflamatory/potentially inflammatory and without substantiation. Now although they were aimed at you and yet you did not take offence, it is not a given exception in the rule that I allow that to continue. And really free speech is not an issue here. Speech is free enough when you can say virtually anything you want on your own dime. Those in authority/ ownership over a medium have a right to restrict and hedge in the quality of discussion that takes place over their limited realm of influence. And though you've expressed concern that the moderation was overbearing, we do in fact value a light touch in moderation, but that light touch can only be as light as people are commited to following our rather liberal rules.

Mick Foley recalled in his autobiography that he and Al Snow once had an insult competition going on with no hard feelings between them, and yet it did eventually get to a point feelings were hurt. But supposing you did engage in such a discussion with the confidence that the inflamatory comments would be taken in a light hearted way, what we'd have then is a spam thread, and we discourage spam in the debate forums. Of course if the comments were substantiated establishing that it wasn't spam, or unsubstantiated heated remarks, I would not have deleated those posts as we have provision for substantiated heated remarks.

As for the consistency in permitting your topic and not the others posts, I have to ask myself if such a topic though inflamatory (even if not intentionally so) can lead to a decent and fruitful discussion though the potential is great for it to degenerate into a mudslinging fest. That question was answered by some of the contributers, particularly John Powell and as it seems to me that the conversation that ensued (though I confess I haven't read every bit of it) has been worthwhile with valid challenges all around. And of course even if the discussion was of poor intellectual quality, which it isn't, it would still have been permissable if there was the attempt at substance.

Now this thread has created a bit of a sticky moderation issue and I don't expect that after these explanations that my actions will have been clearly the best, but I again refer you all to the no griping rule posted and I will edit any further discussion of the moderation in this thread. And again, our website does not discourage criticism, but only that you do it in the proper forums or in pms. I'd rather it be done out in the open and so I am starting a complaint thread here:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4574






dawnghost, I hate to drop you some more bad news, but one statment of yours will be view by many as profane and as such it will be edited.

[Satori]

And Satori didn't seem too offended when he replied to
me.

For sure man. Why would I be "offended"? I'm just expressing myself and doing what I feel is the right thing by giving others the opportunity to escape whatever innane dogma has compromised their reason and self-honesty (I think that where there is a deep-rooted obligation to believe based in part on the fear of the consequences of not believing, personal liberties of choice are truncated, and that is something to entirely obvious to me that I'm quite amazed that other cannot, or perhaps, will not admit, that they see it as well).

That being said, do you have ANYTHING to actually say with regard to anything I have said so far, other than to heckle from the sidelines? If so, say it already, I'm waiting. ;)

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97641#post97641)
dawnghost:

and by the way
I may not have the time to join the debate anymore, I hardly have any time to read the threads I find interesting here, let alone post refutations to Satori's usually lengthy posts.

I see you have found another excuse for not replying. How predicted. Then I guess you'll continue with your childish name-calling and hecking from the sidelines without actually ever getting involved then eh?

so, he asked me to bring the old thread from the dead. I did it to show that while he claimed that Calvinist and I copped out from the discussion, it was actually when I proposed a resolution for us to discuss that Satori disappeared.

Umm... yea, sure. I looked over that thread, that was one of the threads I was referring to, and I think you and Calvinist's behaviour was simply disgraceful. You both went to great lengths to avoiding countering anything I said, and did a whole lot of childish name-calling without actually saying anything. I guess that passes for intelligent conversation for you, but it does not for me. I expect more of you.

There was another thread I was referring to as well, in which I replied to something Cal had written in rebuttal to something I had written, and he copped-out with the excuse of "I don't have time". Perhaps you can find that thread as well.

Anyway my friends, I'm here, if there is *anything* you want to actually DISCUSS with me, then by all means, please do. However, if falling back into your old cop-out habits is the best you can do, then I'll simply continue to point that out again and again, just as I did in the thread your dug up (thanks for that by the way).

sincerely, in reason,

Satori

[Satori]

Yesterday @ 08:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97575#post97575)
dawnghost:
please note that you didn't quite respond to my last post in that old thread posted above. thank you. :ahem:

What post? I looked for one, and I didn't see it. Did you actually SAY SOMETHING? If so, please let me know what post it was, and you'll get your reply ;)

all the best,

Satori

[dawnghost]

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97725#post97725)
geebob:
dawnghost, I hate to drop you some more bad news, but one statment of yours will be view by many as profane and as such it will be edited.

sorry for that, really. I promise to be more careful in the future.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97818#post97818)
Satori:
I see you have found another excuse for not replying. How predicted. Then I guess you'll continue with your childish name-calling and hecking from the sidelines without actually ever getting involved then eh?

I am not copping out, but I happen to have to maintain my scholarship and work as well. that leaves me little time to reply to your posts. and by the way, come on! who's being childish here now? of course you wouldn't give me the benefit of doubt here, but the tone of your post up there pretty much contradicts your "loving, all I wish to do is help" image, doesn't it? don't worry Mr. Satori, I'll be sure to follow your debates and enlighten myself with your wisdom.

Umm... yea, sure. I looked over that thread, that was one of the threads I was referring to, and I think you and Calvinist's behaviour was simply disgraceful. You both went to great lengths to avoiding countering anything I said, and did a whole lot of childish name-calling without actually saying anything. I guess that passes for intelligent conversation for you, but it does not for me. I expect more of you.

now that's funny. our behaviour was disgraceful, eh? I am sure the members of TWeb will be able to judge that by themselves.

There was another thread I was referring to as well, in which I replied to something Cal had written in rebuttal to something I had written, and he copped-out with the excuse of "I don't have time". Perhaps you can find that thread as well.

do I look like a thread hunter to you?

Anyway my friends, I'm here, if there is *anything* you want to actually DISCUSS with me, then by all means, please do. However, if falling back into your old cop-out habits is the best you can do, then I'll simply continue to point that out again and again, just as I did in the thread your dug up (thanks for that by the way).

old cop-out habits, eh? I see you have visited that thread about your open challenge, but have failed to find the post which you didn't actually respond to, even though there were references to it that came up afterwards.

no matter.

I'll pinpoint it for you, in the proper thread.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 12:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=97853#post97853)
Satori:

What post? I looked for one, and I didn't see it. Did you actually SAY SOMETHING? If so, please let me know what post it was, and you'll get your reply ;)

all the best,

Satori

for easy access to the post, it is now here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=98078#post98078).

[Warcraft3]

dawnghost:

Ive been following your discussion with this "Satori" and Ive read the "old posts" as well.

My question to you is....................Is this Satori guy for real?:lol:





Russ

[dawnghost]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98082#post98082)
steadele:

dawnghost:

Ive been following your discussion with this "Satori" and Ive read the "old posts" as well.

My question to you is....................Is this Satori guy for real?:lol:





Russ

hi steadele. :smile:

I am afraid so. even though reality can be VERY subjective for him! :teeth:

[greyphilosophy]

Satori, you have made references in several of your posts with words such as "unethical", "right", and "more important", to a belief in standards. Where do you think the ethical comes from? How do you decide what is right? How would you decide if something was wrong? How do you decide something is more important than something else?

Postmodernism has its limits.

~Grey

[Defenestrator]

Satori:

That being said, do you have ANYTHING to actually say with regard to anything I have said so far, other than to heckle from the sidelines? If so, say it already, I'm waiting. ;)

Satori

I don't have much to say. Your post was clearly for those "who genuinely seek liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions..."

I don't think Christianity is any of those things, so I'm not seeking help. If you can offer some reason for your above views, then I may join in.

[Satori]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98082#post98082)
steadele:

dawnghost:

Ive been following your discussion with this "Satori" and Ive read the "old posts" as well.

My question to you is....................Is this Satori guy for real?:lol:


It's a shame you don't have anything to say. Maybe you'll think of something soon? I'll be waiting.

To answer question, yes, I am for real, but then, I suspect you already knew that and only asked the question so that you would have something to say without actually attempting to counter anything I've said. It's a popular trend I've noted, so I really don't expect any less.

sincerely,

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98103#post98103)
dawnghost:

hi steadele. :smile:

I am afraid so. even though reality can be VERY subjective for him! :teeth:

I have a bit of a newsflash for you my friend, reality is also VERY subjective for you too. You are simply unable to recognize that in your quest to believe that your mental maps are accurate portrayals of the territory. I bet you think the sky is actually blue, and that doggy-doo actually smells bad, and your interpretation plays absolutely no part in that whatsoever.

Being so tightly bound by the limitations of one's own subjectivity does not lend itself to open-mindedness. I hope some day this insight will come to you.

best wishes,

Satori

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

"doggy doo" actually does smell bad...

[Warcraft3]

It's a shame you don't have anything to say. Maybe you'll think of something soon? I'll be waiting.
Satori, Satori, Satori...........such a sarcastic statement "maybe you'll think of somthing soon?" from the one who is here to "liberate" me from my delusion becuase of his deep rooted "love" and "compassion" for my well being. You attempt to hide your arrogance and poor attitude behind the claim that you are doing all of this for my benefit. But your true attitude is seen not just in the thread title, but in the opening post as well.
We will take a look at your opening post in just a sec.......

To answer question, yes, I am for real, but then, I suspect you already knew that and only asked the question so that you would have something to say without actually attempting to counter anything I've said.
Fear not oh wise one, we will address your masterpiece of an opening post in a sec.......

It's a popular trend I've noted, so I really don't expect any less.
Ahhhhh how loving and compassionate of you to assume that my feeble mind (along with my delusional beliefs) is incapable of addressing the points you make. There is an over abundance of fact filled points in the opening post, so lets take a look at them , shall we?

I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site.
Well now that statement was certainly fact filled now wasnt it? Good evidence to back up your arguments there Satori. You said that Im irrational, delusional, dishonest, ignorant, and egocentric. Well you do back that up so well with actual evidence (I mean of course you, being the all wise one, would never simply make such a statement out of personal opinion). So let me respond with an equally evidentially based statement...........NO YOU ARE!!!

I was here a while ago, and I had some discussions with many of you, and it always seemingly came back to the same thing: "I can't reply to you Satori because of reason X, reason Y, etc. etc.
I read some of your past exchanges and I find this statement to be false. Please provide some evidence to back up your claim, oh loving one.

Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here:
So you want to increase the difficulities of my struggles with my beliefs? Oh thank you loving one!!! How can I ever repay you? What compassion!!!!

I am here to HELP. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that many of you have fallen victim to the mindless hoaxes of organized religion, which plays upon your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important. I feel that such rhetoric is compromising your intelligence and freedoms at the absolute deepest level, and I feel that that is an injustice that you all deserve to have revealed to you and be addressed.
And you alone will reveal such things out of your infinite wisdom!!! Thank you so much Satori!!! Teach me your wisdom!!!

With that said, if there are any takers, if anyone would like to discuss anything about anything with me, then please, by all means, bring it up to me and I promise to open a honest and open dialog with you. However, if you are desparately clinging to your faith in real hope and fear, and if you are genuinely spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty then please do not discuss anything of this nature with me and overlook anything I write.
I sincerely hope that we can have "open and honest" dialogue without anyone insulting the other side..........Oh wait..........oops too late You already did that!!!
Your compassion and restraint are simply amazing, oh non insulting one.


The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest.
Holy contradiction Batman!!! Lets look at two quotes by the all wise and loving Satori side by side.......
Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here:

The last thing I want to do is make your faith struggles so much harder by removing the incredibly weak pillars upon which your religious delusions rest.
My contradiction meter just exploded!!!!!


I care about you all and the last thing I want to do is hurt you by psychoanalysing you and effortlessly debunking whatever god myths have kidnapped your psyches.
Your post is overflowing with caring and understanding!! Thank you, Thank you, Satori from rescuing our psyses!!! I look forward to your "effortless debunking"!!!

Above all, please understand that I am here with one purpose in mind: to help those who genuinely seek liberation from the lies, half-truths, absolutely witless specuations, psychological trappings, and intellectually damaging nonsense spewed upon the minds of innocent children by silly religions such as judiasm, christianity, and islam. I'm just trying to right a wrong folks, and I'm doing what I honestly believe is the right thing, for individuals, and for the global society as a whole. Please bear that in mind, especially if your intention is to "attack" me in my stance and desire to help.
Oh yes it is we who are attacking you Satori. You can easily see this from the hundreds, no thousands, of posts by Christians saying you are "irrational, delusional, dishonest, ignorant, and egocentric." The evidence is overwhelming, oh innocent victim one.


best wishes, in uncompromised reason and loving compassion,

Indeed that post showed us all of your "best wishes" and "compassion".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please, spare me your "compassion".


Russ

[Satori]

Hi grey, great reply! Thank you.

Today @ 05:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98133#post98133)
greyphilosophy:
Satori, you have made references in several of your posts with words such as "unethical", "right", and "more important", to a belief in standards.

Indeed. I feel that being as ethical and practical as possible are traits which will contribute greatly to the advancement and survival of our species, as well as the environmental protection we REQUIRE to sustain us. I feel the fragmented and the extremely human-centric/self-absorbed world views preached by ancient doctrine (ie. judiams, christianity, islam) to not account for many things which are actually important to us in this era of human history. As humanity intellectually evolves and advances, I feel it's extremely important that the philosophies and ideals keep up with that advancement so that it's current and relevant to the situation we find ourselves in. In other words, I feel we've evolved far beyond the usefulness and practicality of the various ancient dogmas still circulating. As a result of this, many people are very confused about (what I feel) is truly important (what benefits ALL of us and this planet on the whole), instead they are continuing to fight with one another over which presumed and as yet unsubstantiated metaphysical theory is the "correct" one and chasing after things like the selfish preservation of their egos (salvation) via the strict adherance to various mythologies, regardless of whether or not these mythologies are actually ethical, loving, or even remotely verified in anyway. But that's "faith" for you, and since "faith" has become some sort of an ideal (as if an intelligent god of some sort would actually be so petty and self-aborbed as to actually place so much value or get so upset over what our species can autoconvince themselves of in the absense of solid reasons for doing so). I think it's quite frankly, ridiculous to the extreme, and if it were not for the vile threats of violence/torture and/or lofty promises of blissful rewards which appeal to our primitive selfish natures, then such theories would not be held in such high regard and defended with such vigor, they would simply be regarded as the metaphysical theories they are and nothing more.


Where do you think the ethical comes from?

That's a great question. I think that every thought that comes from my head (including my ethics) originates as a result of the structure and processes of my physical brain (as determined by my dna and environment, just as is the case in all creatures that have brains and the ability to think or even just react). I feel this is very obvious since thoughts are so closely tied to the physical brain's workings. This is shown by the fact that if you interfere with the brain in any manner, whether chemically, electrically, or with surgery, the thoughts produced by the brain are modified accordingly. This is also true of those elusive aspects of consciousness such as "love" and "sense of self identity" (what some people call "soul"), aspects of mind which are so closely tied with the brain's function that even common street drugs can and DO affect those aspects of mind with great and undeniable brunt.

Therefore, to answer your question, I feel my ethics orginate from my physical brain, not from some unseen supernatural force. If you require any elaboration on this, by all means, please ask.

How do you decide what is right?

I decide that something is "right" simply by the following criteria:
- If the action is in the benefit of the protection, propagation, and advancement of our species, as well as all the millions and millions species we share this earth with (which we directly depend upon for our own survival), then the action is ethically justifiable.
- If the action contributes to the unnecessary suffering of any creatures, or contributes sinificantly to environmental degradation, without providing some perceived required benefit that could not otherwise have been achieved, then the action is not ethically justifiable.

That's just the tip of the iceburg, as I'm sure you realize. I'm sure you also recognize the subjective element in all of this as well, as do I of course. I fully realize that my own subjectivity, perceptions, interpretations, govern what I feel meets or doesn't meet the above mentioned criteria, therefore, what is "ethical" for one person may not necessarily ethical for another. There are as many definitions of what is ethical as their are people to generate those definitions.

For example, in many religions, it's perfectly ethical for the respective gods to expect people to simply "have faith" in whatever doctrine was imposed on them by their family and/or society, regardless of whether or not that faith is healthy for that person, or even justified by common sense, logic, or evidence. Such gods even feel it's ethical to threaten the poor people with various perverse totures and extreme violence for not complying with their demands. I feel this is unethical because I feel that this contributes to unnessary fear, selfishness, and obsessiveness, and it puts innocent people into a trap of dire obligation out of the instinctual desire for their own self-preservation. I feel that maybe in much more ignorant and savage times (which spawned these various mythologies) these sort of tactics were required to keep people in line and socially aware, but I feel we now have far better and more practical philosophies (ie. humanism and environmentalism) which provide even greater freedom and opportunites for advancement without the common pitfalls indicative or organized religions.

How would you decide if something was wrong?

If it hurts people, or this world, to me, it's wrong. This is not some idea which I am somehow adhering to however. I fully realize that my conceptions of what is right and wrong originate in my head and are based on my experiences, insights, and even my dna. Therefore, I realize the subjective element in all of this, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me on what's right or what's wrong, to each his own, and we have laws which keep us in line. For example, to muslim people, savagely beating children/wives as punishment, or gang-raping a woman for having sex before marriage is perfectly "right". I don't feel that way however. In some African religions and cultures, female circumcision with no pain-reducing medications is "right" (and that quite frankly makes me want to wretch and then cry for those poor little girls). To a Jehovah's witness and some mormons, NOT going around knocking on doors trying to convert people is "wrong". I don't agree with that either, I can understand their point of view, I can relate, but I don't agree, and I have my reasons, just as they have theirs. To a born-again christian and some jewish folks, associating with homosexuals by going to their homes is "wrong", and so is a lot of what constitutes stem cell research. To many christians in my own society, driving around in a gas-guzzling SUV while chatting on their cell phone is perfectly moral, but I don't agree with that at all. I don't agree, but to each his own. As I'm sure you clearly see, our subjectivity plays such a VERY significant role in what label right and wrong, and we cannot escape that subjectivity, no matter how hard we may try, no matter what we convince ourselves with regard to the foolishness inherent in ideas like "moral absolutism" (which I feel is simply innane considering that it's completely negated by the obvious fact that what's moral to one person may not be moral to someone else, there are as many versions of morality as there are thinkers to generate them).

Being aware of this obvious aspect of human consciousness goes along way to help us not only understand ourselves, but also to relating to those of differing viewpoints held by other people. Being aware of one's own inescapble subjectivity makes it harder to be come entangled in a web of our own subjectivity so much that we cannot recognize the limitations and inherent bias of your own viewpoints. For this reason, recognizing your own inherently subjective nature make it much easier to be tolerant of those who do not share your ideas pertaining to what is right and what is wrong, and it makes it much easier to relate and understand others who do not share your viewpoints.

I realize I've said a lot here. If anything wasn't completely clear, please tell me and I'll do what I can to elaborate further.

How do you decide something is more important than something else?

Another great question! :) I feel if something more greatly benefits this entire world and everything in it, with specific emphasis on our own species (I'm a human after all, and as such I'm a little human-centric, just like all animals are instinctually geared to care more about the success of their own species than the others), then it's more important than something which doesn't have the same benefit.

Postmodernism has its limits.

Is does? Your subjective opinion has been noted. To someone else, everything has its limits, but we must be careful to recognize that such statements exist in the realm of subjectivity and conjecture and are not somehow "absolute" simply because we "think" they are. I invite you to draw that distinction.

Aside from that, I'm not really sure what you mean by that statement. I get the feeling you are trying to label me somehow, and you perhaps are not too keenly aware that the label you chose is skewed by your own bias, experiences, adherance to various dogmas, expectations, etc.

The universe and the people and things in it do not conform to your subjectively placed labels simply because you "think" they do. I hope the gentle insight and wisdom in this statement is of value and meaning to you. If it's not, then I sincerely hope you'll challenge the statement so that we can discuss it further.

best wishes my friend,

Satori

[Satori]

Today @ 06:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98736#post98736)
pereynol:

"doggy doo" actually does smell bad...

It does? I suppose you also think the sky is actually blue too? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you did, as sorry as I am to say that.

People please note: this is exactly what I mean when say "bound by one's own subjectivity". Some people aren't aware that their ideas about what smells bad and what doesn't are inherently interpretive (and in the case of doggy-doo, tied to our biological survival). To flies, doggy-doo smells like roses, and to many other animals, it doesn't seem to smell either good or bad, just simply a way of marking and identifying territory.

Still think doggy-doo smells bad my friend? Yes, it does to you and me, but you and me are not the grand classifier of aromas, and your opinion about the smell of doggy-doo is neither right nor wrong. The same is even more true of the smells of one food over another, and the same is also true of what you regard as "right" and "wrong".

best wishes,

Satori

[Satori]

Hey Russ. What's shakin dude? It seems to me that you are getting a little bit upset here. For this reason I wonder if conversing with me about this stuff is really to your benefit. However, I'll let you decide that for yourself. I will simply suggest that if you find yourself speaking out of anger and resentment that you simply take a breather and come back to it when you are in a more balanced state of mind. Sometimes such emotions get the better of all of us, and none of us are immune, so no hard feelings bud. There's no rush, take your time, if you want to discuss these things with me I'll do my best to make myself available to you. If you ever have trouble reaching me, send me a private message and direct me to whatever post you made that you want me to reply to. I would appreciate that very much. Thanks.

On to your reply..

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98742#post98742)
steadele:
Satori, Satori, Satori...........such a sarcastic statement "maybe you'll think of somthing soon?" from the one who is here to "liberate" me from my delusion becuase of his deep rooted "love" and "compassion" for my well being.

Thank you. As you probably realized by now, I said that for 1 reason, to inspire you to say something relevant to me. I hope it worked, we shall see by the rest of your reply if it in fact did or not. I sincerely hope it did.

You attempt to hide your arrogance and poor attitude behind the claim that you are doing all of this for my benefit.

I understand how you feel, and I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I make no such attempts to hide anything, my "arrogance" is there simply to get people typing and defending their positions (and I'm sure you see how effective it is to this end). I also don't feel that I have a "poor attitude". I sincerely have a great deal of love and compassion for people and for this reason I don't want them to go through life narrow-minded, afraid, and obligated to buy into whatever dogma was instilled in them when they were young. I hope you can someday come to understand and accept that, but I doubt you will, but that's ok, I can accept that about you because I don't expect you to be anything other than who you are.

But your true attitude is seen not just in the thread title, but in the opening post as well.
We will take a look at your opening post in just a sec.......

Excellent, I'm looking forward to it very much.

Fear not oh wise one, we will address your masterpiece of an opening post in a sec.......

Your resentment is getting the better of you I see. For that reason I will not take the things you say out of anger too literally, and I'll try to reply to the rest of your post without angering you further.

Ahhhhh how loving and compassionate of you to assume that my feeble mind (along with my delusional beliefs) is incapable of addressing the points you make. There is an over abundance of fact filled points in the opening post, so lets take a look at them , shall we?

Note: I feel you are perhaps completely unaware that such conversation exists almost entirely in the realm of opinion and conjecture, and most "facts" are only facts if we appoint them as such. I invite you to make this distinction.

Satori said: "I'm back to try to shed some light upon the shadow of irrational and delusional egocentric ignorance and self-dishonesty which seems to me to be the benchmark of this site."

Well now that statement was certainly fact filled now wasnt it? Good evidence to back up your arguments there Satori.

I direct you to the section above labeled "Note:" (rather than repeat myself). Please re-read that part.

You said that Im irrational, delusional, dishonest, ignorant, and egocentric.

No I didn't. I said that such modes of reasoning are very common here, just as it is everywhere else. It wasn't directed at you personally. I do not yet know you well enough to subjectively decide that about you personally. Besides, you should realize by now that I said that with the intention of getting people to reply and defend against it (and I see it worked). I hope you tell me your reasons why you are not delusional and egocentric in the remainder of your post.

Well you do back that up so well with actual evidence (I mean of course you, being the all wise one, would never simply make such a statement out of personal opinion).

I direct you once again to the section labeled "Note:". I also think it's rather humourous that a person who (perhaps) values "faith" above reason or evidence would now require "evidence" to support what is just an opinion and nothing more.

So let me respond with an equally evidentially based statement...........NO YOU ARE!!!

Brilliant comeback, and your skill with fonts is nothing to shake a stick at either! hehe. I hope you will now list all the reasons and all the irrational ideals and deep-rooted/dire metaphysical obligations I have which lead to cling to such a viewpoint above and beyond all common sense (just as I have done to the benefit of the counterpoint in this thread and many others, as I'm sure you realize but are failing to acknowledge).

Satori said: "I was here a while ago, and I had some discussions with many of you, and it always seemingly came back to the same thing: "I can't reply to you Satori because of reason X, reason Y, etc. etc."

I read some of your past exchanges and I find this statement to be false. Please provide some evidence to back up your claim, oh loving one.

Thanks for referring to me as a loving person. With regard to your request, no problem. You are free to dig up those threads, or you can simply look at the one our good friend dawnghost was kind enough to salvage. Many people were able to respond (which I am greatful for of course), but even more were not, preferring instead to resort to childish name calling and heckling without actually even so much as attempting to refute anything I said with their own subjective conjecture. Since this was more the norm than the expection, I came to identify that as a bit of a trend, and I was hoping to inspire people to respond to it by pointing it out.

Satori mused: "Before you get miffed at me once again for doing my best to increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith in any of the world's archaic and now very out-dated theologies, allow me to again re-state my purpose for being here"

So you want to increase the difficulities of my struggles with my beliefs?

Yes, but only if it is to your benefit to do so, of course, only it will help you in some way. If it doesn't benefit you (and as this point I'm sure it doesn't) then I would prefer that you stick your head in the sand and pray to whatever gods make you feel happy and safe and not give much thought to anything I have to say (in other words, simply close your mind to alternative points of view, just as your "faith" and "god" demands of you). I only want what's best for you personally, regardless of what that is, and I fully realize that living under the guise of one of the world's many ancient mythologies is perhaps what is truly best for some people (particularly if that mythology has instilled in them some perverse fear-based reaction if they try to escape it, like the most common organized religions all seem to do with their respective and inherent fear-mechanisms).

So to answer your question more briefly: Yes, if it's to your benefit, no, if it's not to your benefit. I hope that I've cleared that up for you sufficiently, if not, please ask and I'll elaborate further, no problem.

Oh thank you loving one!!! How can I ever repay you? What compassion!!!!

I feel the need to point out that such blatant sarcasm and shouting text does not lend to me thinking that you are being completely rational and friendly.

But since you said it, I'll reply to it as if you meant it literally:

You're very welcome.
How can you repay me? Stop and think for a moment, why would I even want you to repay me? Why would I be selfish in that way? I feel that a good deed is its own reward and needs no further reward.

Perhaps you are thinking in terms of "repayment" because of the religious doctrine you adhere to, where your god dishes out punishments and rewards based on your actions (and even your "beliefs"). I do not adhere to the idea that I should be rewarded when I do something nice, nor do I do nice things to get rewarded. I hope that you can see the difference. That's why I donate some of my time and money to charities, not to get a reward, but only to help those who are less fortunate than myself. I sincerely hope you can recognize this now. No thank you's are necessary with me, not now, not ever.

Satori said: "I am here to HELP. I honestly feel in my heart and mind that many of you have fallen victim to the mindless hoaxes of organized religion, which plays upon your irrational fears, selfish desires, and general tendency to be egocentric/self-important. I feel that such rhetoric is compromising your intelligence and freedoms at the absolute deepest level, and I feel that that is an injustice that you all deserve to have revealed to you and be addressed. "

And you alone will reveal such things out of your infinite wisdom!!!

Not quite. You can learn this from anywhere, you can even figure it out on your own, just as many people who didn't have some sort of religious doctrine imposed on them (and even some that did) did figure it out all by themselves. My nephew even came to these very same conclusions all on his own, with no help from anyone at all, when he was just 12 years old. He simply recognized the psychological trap that was being imposed on his mind by his catholic schooling, as many do. It may surprise you to note that many, dare I say MOST, nontheist people recognize this as well, just as you can probably clearly see the fear/reward based psychological trappings in a person who is Islamic or whatever but you cannot see it in yourself. You know, an Islamic person would be able to see it in you, but not be able to see it in themselves. I hope you see what I'm saying, and I hope you have courage and self honesty to seriously consider it (but I don't see how you could honestly consider what I just said, seeing as regarding your religion as a psychological trap constitutes a sort of blasphemy which you have been condition (via fear and promises of reward) to avoid). So, to be perfectly blunt, I don't think you are even FREE to look at your own religion in such a way (as a psychological trap), lest your god unleashed its wrath upon you for doing so, or deny you your rewards, or whatever theories you hold (I'm sure it's along those lines). I find that quite sad, and it's this lack of freedom which I am addressing and hoping to dissolve (though in your case, and in the case of most people who hold "faith" above all else, seeing their religion as a psychological trap is not something they are willing or even able to do, with such disturbingly important and dire obligations to buy into a given set of beliefs, that freedom is truncated as well).

Thank you so much Satori!!! Teach me your wisdom!!!

No thanks are necessary my friend, and I needn't teach you anything, if your mind was completely clear of the burden of deep-rooted obligations to adhere to a specific and narrow viewpoint (if you weren't brainwashed with scary dogmas), then everything I've said would be likely be apparent to you already and wouldn't require stating.

Satori said: "With that said, if there are any takers, if anyone would like to discuss anything about anything with me, then please, by all means, bring it up to me and I promise to open a honest and open dialog with you. However, if you are desparately clinging to your faith in real hope and fear, and if you are genuinely spooked by whatever mythology has hi-jacked your higher reasoning and self-honesty then please do not discuss anything of this nature with me and overlook anything I write."

I sincerely hope that we can have "open and honest" dialogue without anyone insulting the other side..........Oh wait..........oops too late You already did that!!!

"without anyone insulting the other side"? I don't recall saying that. I happen to enjoy hard-core debating full of insults, I think it's illuminating and highly entertaining, but I fully realize that not everyone feels that way as well. Perhaps this is something you added, for effect, as an attempt to puts words into my mouth? Please explain.

But anyway, I'm sorry that you feel insulted. My intent was obviously to evoke some very strong emotions in people to inspire them to respond. If I actually hurt you or anyone else (and I realize I probably have) then I sincerely apologize and I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me. And on that note, if your intent is to not get offended again, I suggest you steer clear of having such discussions with me, as I am bound to insult you sooner or later because I don't feel the need to sugar-coat things. I hope you understand steadele.

Your compassion and restraint are simply amazing, oh non insulting one.

Couple of things:
-I don't think compassion is all that amazing, I think it's something innate to many people. I do not think it's very innate to the various gods of this world however, who's sadism and malice simply makes me sick and sad.
-I don't have much restraint, I tell it like I see it, in case that wasn't already completely apparent, now you know.


Holy contradiction Batman!!! Lets look at two quotes by the all wise and loving Satori side by side.......


My contradiction meter just exploded!!!!!

Excellent. Then I will resolve this contradiction for you (I was actually hoping someone would point this out, so I'd have the opportunity to explain myself even further, thanks):

I only want to "increase the difficulty of your various struggles to maintain blind faith" IF and ONLY IF that is to your *benefit*. If discussing such things with me makes it harder in your primary objective of "keeping faith", and if losing aspects of your faith to reason bothers you (or even if this type of discussion upsets you and makes you resentful or unhappy) then I want you to steer clear of anything I say. I know that the things I say have the ability to hurt people for whom faith is greater than anything else. I don't want to hurt such people. I only wish to help those who genuinely seek liberation from whatever dogmas are keeping them in intellectual bondage and tied to a single narrow point of view. I realize that most people regard their faith as their only hope at salvation and the avoidance of some perverse punishment, and for those people, I think what's best for them to to keep on believing, cuz to do otherwise would be counter-productive to their mental health and happiness. I hope you now see what I was saying, and that you have now resolved that contradiction. I only want to make it harder for you if it's to your benefit (and in your case specifically, I'm sure it isn't, for very obvious reasons, seeing as you are so upset that you showing your resentment with sarcasm).

Your post is overflowing with caring and understanding!!

Thank you once again. Your post is overflowing with resentment and sarcasm, but as you can see I'm overlooking that in favour of something deeper and more meaningful. I hope in the future you will do the same for my posts.

Thank you, Thank you, Satori from rescuing our psyses!!! I look forward to your "effortless debunking"!!!

Excellent! I hope that you will have the personal liberty and courage to seriously consider what I'm saying and to not be insulted or hurt by it, or be resentful and resort to sarcasm as a way of displaying your obvious discontentment and resentment towards me personally. In other words, relax dude.

Oh yes it is we who are attacking you Satori.

Given the tone of your post thus far, I feel that entirely evident, and it's exactly the kinda of thing which I was hoping to be avoided when I made that statement. I would like you to realize that I'm not "attacking" YOU personally, just the ideas you cling to. I invite you to please make that distinction.

However, if hating me and choosing to believe that I'm a bad guy makes you feel better and supports your own world view, then by all means be my guest, I really don't mind because I am secure in my own ethics and honesty, and I sincerely hope you are as well, perhaps even so secure that you won't get so upset and defensive in future dealings with me. We shall see.


You can easily see this from the hundreds, no thousands, of posts by Christians saying you are "irrational, delusional, dishonest, ignorant, and egocentric." The evidence is overwhelming, oh innocent victim one.

Interesting perspective. I ask that you list all the various ways that I am irrational, delusional, dishonest, ignorant, and egocentric, so that I may deconstruct such assertions.

Indeed that post showed us all of your "best wishes" and "compassion".

I'm sure it did for some, but for people such as yourself, who immediately jump on the defensive when someone says very blunt things which goes directly and willfully against their beloved world view and innate NEED to "keep the faith" which they are obligated to cling to above and beyond all rationality, I sure it did NOT. But then, I'm just stating the obvious, I realize.

Please, spare me your "compassion".

Even if I wanted to Russ (which I don't), I wouldn't, in good conscience, be able to, because it would be a compromise of my ethics. Even if you were a very "bad" person who commited horribly crimes I would still have just as much compassion for you. I hope you understand, even if you cannot relate. But I would like to point out that just because your god (according to the most common doctrines anyway) is incapable of such unconditional and selfless compassion, that doesn't mean you are incapable of it as well. You are, I'm sure of that, and I think almost everyone is. If you put focused effort into cultivating such virtues within yourself then they would likely become a part of you. That's how I honestly feel. Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are not as difficult to acquire as most people seem to think, but they just don't land in your lap, you have to work at it, just like everything else in life that's worthwhile. That is the thing which I have said in this reply that I hope you'll take to heart Russ. Even if you have decided that I'm a bad person who is out to hurt you, I hope that you will see the value in that uncompromising degree of selfless compassion for others, and for all intelligent life forms on this planet we call home.

in reason and loving compassion,

Satori

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I appreciate those theists willing to engage Satori. If I believed in God I would invoke His blessings upon you.

Satori, would you please place paragraph breaks about 2 or 3 times more frequently than you do? That will make it easier to read your posts. I don't want to be a hypocrite (Mr. Verbosity himself), but you might want to shorten the length of your posts, especially where you become repetitive. I should take this advice myself.

I'm finding a lot of your ideas I agree with, but not necessarily the way you present them.

Cheers,

John Powell

[Satori]

Today @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98887#post98887)
John Powell:

POWELL:
I appreciate those theists willing to engage Satori. If I believed in God I would invoke His blessings upon you.

Satori, would you please place paragraph breaks about 2 or 3 times more frequently than you do? That will make it easier to read your posts. I don't want to be a hypocrite (Mr. Verbosity himself), but you might want to shorten the length of your posts, especially where you become repetitive. I should take this advice myself.

I'm finding a lot of your ideas I agree with, but not necessarily the way you present them.

Cheers,

John Powell

Thanks John. I will try my best to heed your advice. I tend to think and type very quickly, so I don't put as much effort into structuring and fixing errors as I perhaps should.

To be blunt, I've tried other, less harsh, methods of getting people to think/respond, and I have found they are less successful than the one I'm currently using.

I have found that people dig the deepest and try the hardest when they feel a little threatened, but hey, to each his own. What's effective for one person may not be effective for another.

Besides (and perhaps I'm revealing a bit too much about my methods here, but hey, I have nothing to hide), I feel that those who cannot take a little friendly berating (which does make this sort of discussion a lot more entertaining for some!) usually are a little too sensitive and tied much too strongly to a single viewpoint to actually consider alternative ones. In other words, I actively hope to attact those for whom such conversation is worthwhile, and repel those who take this stuff entirely too seriously and get upset and offended by it (which I feel most theists do, considering what's a stake for them in the various psychological trappings, perceived punishments, and rewards). I'm sure you understand, even if you don't agree.

Stay cool, reasonable, and aware of your own inherent subjectivity, they are traits of yours I admire very much.

best wishes,

Satori

[Satori]

Hey everyone! It's been a blast, but unfortunately I'm taking off for the evening now (early! woohoo! ) and since Monday is a holiday the earliest I may return is on Tuesday. I hope to see you all then.

Dawnghost: I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to respond to you today. Please be a little more patient, and I will get to it, I promise.

all the best my friends, and "theological enemies" (hehe),

Satori

[Warcraft3]

Satori:

I assure you that there was no emotional content in my responce whatsoever. Everything was posted in such a way as to get a point across. If you ever read any of the other posts I have made on this website, you will find that I do not fear skepticism. I am skeptical of my own beliefs and have spent alot of time listening to arguments from both sides of the table.

I believe the evidence for the historicity of the Bible is quite good, including the resurrection. I believe the existance of the early church, so close to the time frame of Jesus life and death, is confirmation that the miracles were indeed real events in space and time. I have a hard time believing that the church would have survived if their claims were false concerning the acts of Jesus and the apostales.

I have personally witnessed several miracles, which I have attempted to explain away and could not.

These things and many others provide me with "evidence" and give me "reason to believe". I left the faith for a time and re-examined the Bible and the "evidence" for Christianity. I had no intention of returning to it, but after further study found the arguments in favor of it quite good.

So yes, the basis for why I believe is quite rational and evidential in nature. I do not believe "just because". I also do not believe because of some "physcological conditioning" or any such related issue.

I resonded to your post because you presented yourself in such a way, that you did not earn my respect. You claim to be all "lovey dovey" and caring and rational, but your words do not reflect this.

John Powell has earned my respect, even though he disagrees with my beliefs and my "evidence". Perhaps you should emulate his posts and leave some of the inflammatory statements out next time.

I am quite unemotional about our discussion and do not really have any strong feelings, like you think I do. In time, you will find this to be the case, despite my occasional use of sarcasm and font to make points. There are a few errors in your latest response which I will address later.



Russ

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'd like to briefly discuss one little part of your post, Satori.

SATORI:
How can you repay me? Stop and think for a moment, why would I even want you to repay me? Why would I be selfish in that way? I feel that a good deed is its own reward and needs no further reward.


POWELL:
Is doing a good deed really its own reward?

If from now on you were to feel badly doing what you now consider to be "good" (like giving to the needy) should you do it? In other words, if "good" deeds do not reward the giver by producing pleasurable sensations then should they be done?

Also, is it bad selfish to demand a reward, such as good feelings, for doing a "good" deed?

John Powell

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 01:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98768#post98768)
Satori:



It does? I suppose you also think the sky is actually blue too? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you did, as sorry as I am to say that.

People please note: this is exactly what I mean when say "bound by one's own subjectivity". Some people aren't aware that their ideas about what smells bad and what doesn't are inherently interpretive (and in the case of doggy-doo, tied to our biological survival). To flies, doggy-doo smells like roses, and to many other animals, it doesn't seem to smell either good or bad, just simply a way of marking and identifying territory.

Still think doggy-doo smells bad my friend? Yes, it does to you and me, but you and me are not the grand classifier of aromas, and your opinion about the smell of doggy-doo is neither right nor wrong. The same is even more true of the smells of one food over another, and the same is also true of what you regard as "right" and "wrong".

best wishes,

Satori

Perhaps we should enter into formal debate over this all too sublime issue: "Resolved: Doggie doo does indeed carry a stench...." You could argue from reductive materialism that, since "stenches" reduce to subatomic particles, along with noses and human intersubjectivity, that such entities are thereby not intrinsically "real," and I'll say that, despite the possibility of said
reduction, perhaps "reality" only operates within the context of mind anyway, and therefore reductive materialism itself could be construed phenomenally, rendering it just as ontologically suspect as the proposed "stench" of doggie doo. But, seeing that the two are already on a par, we could just forbear the whole thing, wink, smile, and nod...

(The whole thing about doggie doo was a bit of a joke, BTW, whether one takes the sky for blue, the grass for green, or the physical universe as crudely four-dimensional.)

:angel:

[John Powell]

STEADELE:
I have personally witnessed several miracles, which I have attempted to explain away and could not.


POWELL:
Perhaps now would be a good time to begin a thread of "Personal miracles that can't be adequately explained except by invoking God." I will begin the thread in hopes of your participation, Russ, unless you would like to do the honor.

John Powell

[dawnghost]

Today @ 01:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99092#post99092)
John Powell:
POWELL:
Perhaps now would be a good time to begin a thread of "Personal miracles that can't be adequately explained except by invoking God." I will begin the thread in hopes of your participation, Russ, unless you would like to do the honor.

John Powell

hi John, how are you?

if you do open a thread to talk to steadele on that subject, please pm me.
I have some personal experiences that, I think, would add to the discussion as well. :smile:

[dawnghost]

Yesterday @ 09:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=98908#post98908)
Satori:
I have found that people dig the deepest and try the hardest when they feel a little threatened, but hey, to each his own. What's effective for one person may not be effective for another.


I, personally, try my harder when people provide me with evidence, but HEY! to each his own, right?



:joy: :yipee: :joy:

[Satori]

05-17-2003 @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99611#post99611)
dawnghost:



I, personally, try my harder when people provide me with evidence, but HEY! to each his own, right?

:joy: :yipee: :joy:

You are clinging to theistic notions and now you are claiming that evidence is of value to you? Please. If that were the case you wouldn't of posted all that incredibly innane AiG nonsense with references to "noah's flood" and "humans co-existing with dinosaurs". You are only interested in evidence that makes it easier for you to maintain your faith obligations, and I think that's extremely evident. Bluntly put, having an open mind and going to wherever the evidence leads you just isn't an option for you, your god expects you to believe whatever it is that you believe regardless of the evidence in our physical world (which contrasts quite sharply with the mythical biblical accounts you are so fond of).

You are well aware that you will continue to cling to your beliefs regardless of how much evidence against your ideas comes up, that is what faith is after all, the eternal obligation to remain closed-minded and fixed on a single viewpoint at the negation of all the rest. It's this truncation of personal liberties which I'm trying to help people overcome, and it's my reason for being here at all.

For you to suggest to me that evidence has any real substance to you would be like you suggesting to me that you have an open mind that is willing to accept whatever "truths" are revealed by a proper inquiry. As a person of "faith", you simply don't have that option/luxury, so please don't pretend like you do because you aren't fooling anyone. I don't blame you for clinging to your faith, you probably feel personally threatened by your religion and as such you don't really have much of a choice either way. I don't blame you for your "choice" because it wasn't much of a choice anyway, freedom with someone holding a gun to your head isn't freedom at all, it's coercion. I bet you were introduced to these ideas before you were old enough to defend against them. Just a hunch.

yours,

Satori

[dawnghost]

aaaaaahhh! it feels like I'm being drawn into a time vortex! I'm going back in time!

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103646#post103646)
Satori:
You are clinging to theistic notions and now you are claiming that evidence is of value to you? Please.

*cracks knuckles*
let's start.

yes I am claiming that evidence is of value to me. actually, do you know a scientist named Newton? I think evidence was of value to him as well, and oh! did I mention he was a theist? nevermind, I'm sure you knew that already.

but now, that statement of yours above just brings chills up my spine, it's like I've read that before... like a deja vu... let's see, maybe I've seen it answered here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19224#post19224) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19342#post19342) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19433#post19433) as well. oh, and coincidence, that witch! that last link there is precisely the post you have forgotten to respond to! you know, the one that deals with presenting us with evidence.

Satori:
If that were the case you wouldn't of posted all that incredibly innane AiG nonsense with references to "noah's flood" and "humans co-existing with dinosaurs". You are only interested in evidence that makes it easier for you to maintain your faith obligations, and I think that's extremely evident.

well, evident or not, that's only your personal opinion as often. for example, my opinion here differs to yours. but so that I might give you the taste of what an unsubstantiated opinion, sounds like, I'll let it just like it is! there! that's my opinion and that's it! and I'll copycat you some further: even though 'reality is subjective', because I am a theist that implies that my vision is better than yours, because clearly atheists couldn't care less when it comes to evidence and empirical reasoning, and I think that's extremely evident!

Satori:
Bluntly put, having an open mind and going to wherever the evidence leads you just isn't an option for you, your god expects you to believe whatever it is that you believe regardless of the evidence in our physical world (which contrasts quite sharply with the mythical biblical accounts you are so fond of).

deja vu! what was the answer to that again? ahh, the theistic framework just can't be reasonable at all, while the materialistic one can't even be challenged. but wait a second... that pretty much contradicts your statement on having an 'open mind', doesn't it? if you consider, a priori, that the framework which I'm working with contradicts all evidence, show us that evidence, Mr. Satori!

unless, of course, you're morbidly working on building an image of intense bigotry here in TWeb. which just wouldn't be rational, now that I think of it, so I'll just toss that possibility out of the window.

Satori:
You are well aware that you will continue to cling to your beliefs regardless of how much evidence against your ideas comes up, that is what faith is after all, the eternal obligation to remain closed-minded and fixed on a single viewpoint at the negation of all the rest. It's this truncation of personal liberties which I'm trying to help people overcome, and it's my reason for being here at all.

hahahahahahaha that made me chuckle! what a fine piece of comedy!

so, I am well aware that I will continue to cling to my beliefs (that may be backed up by reason, as I suggest, or not at all, as you imply) regardless of how much now check this out evidence against my ideas comes up! hahahahahahahaha you wrote this on purpose, didn't you? you're testing how much bs I can take before I start to completely ignore any masterpiece you ever write here in TWeb, aren't you? you, you, naughty you!

Satori:
For you to suggest to me that evidence has any real substance to you would be like you suggesting to me that you have an open mind that is willing to accept whatever "truths" are revealed by a proper inquiry. As a person of "faith", you simply don't have that option/luxury, so please don't pretend like you do because you aren't fooling anyone.

oh darn! you're too smart for me!

oh, and by the way, let me compare two posts of yours:

Satori:
For you to suggest to me that evidence has any real substance to you would be like you suggesting to me that you have an open mind that is willing to accept whatever "truths" are revealed by a proper inquiry

Satori: from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19404#post19404)
Let me explain something to you, something you should've realized by now: facts, themselves, are interpretative. This is another way of saying: interpretation is subjective. Even the notion of a fact is subjective.

:ponder:
that pretty much invalidates whatever you post here, doesn't it? actually you and I as well. what makes you think YOU are right and I am wrong then? oh! I forgot! you're an atheist so you're always right, while I'm a theist so I'm only a deluded fool. my bad, sorry for that.

Satori:
I don't blame you for clinging to your faith, you probably feel personally threatened by your religion and as such you don't really have much of a choice either way. I don't blame you for your "choice" because it wasn't much of a choice anyway, freedom with someone holding a gun to your head isn't freedom at all, it's coercion.

thanks for not blaming me, I was reaching for my Lexotan already when I read that and felt relieved. now I only have to worry about God blaming me and sending me to hell. and by the way, someone gave you a healthy warning on that, posted here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=103696#post103696), but I'll quote the exact part here:

Morpheus:
while this may be true of some christians, it certainly is not true of all. i could just as easily say that the skeptic's fear that christianity is right and that he may actually be hellbound makes him far less capable of employing healthy skepticism toward his own skepticism. these statements/opinions can work both ways.

hell... brrrrr! :eek:

Satori:
I bet you were introduced to these ideas before you were old enough to defend against them. Just a hunch.

hey Satori! guess what! you're wrong! :yipee:



by the way, please don't forget to respond to this post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19433#post19433). I'm posting it again because I know sometimes we forget to do stuff, even though it's been there waiting for your attention since february. nasty memory!

[greyphilosophy]

Satori writes:

The universe and the people and things in it do not conform to your subjectively placed labels simply because you "think" they do. I hope the gentle insight and wisdom in this statement is of value and meaning to you. If it's not, then I sincerely hope you'll challenge the statement so that we can discuss it further.


You cannot prove otherwise. After all, in my world maybe they do. And in my world you are scared of the truth because the truth is what can prove you wrong. You had a teacher perhaps who scolded you too severely for being wrong once? Maybe a parent? Maybe you made the wrong choice once and someone got hurt? Wouldn't it be nice if everything were subjective, so that you never actually were wrong, just right in a different way? If that is what you believe, I pity you. Life has so much more waiting for those willing to overcome their fears and accept the truth. Truth brings with it freedom from the subjective prisons we create around ourselves. If you ever transcend you will see this. Behind the illusions we create around us in our minds lies reality. Until then I don't think you are ready for the truth.

Also I am quite aware of my subjective opinions and labels. Are you aware of yours?