Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective Page: <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 5:01:36 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
You are too old to be still shooting at straw men.
 
K.
 

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 481
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 5:43:08 PM   
Loveisallyouneed


Posts: 348
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

In effect, what you are proposing, eliminates some of the conflict and tension that is arguably a part of how every other species in nature work.

If what you are proposing is that whatever happens is natural, and therefore right, there's really not much to argue about.


"Arguably" we stepped away from the balance of nature quite some time ago as we developed medical treatments, improved infant mortality and launched ourselves to the moon.

No other species has achieved these accomplishments.

On the other hand, as we are animals, a distinct species, we are part of nature and all we do can be called "natural" in the truest sense of the word.

The word "right", coming from you is a puzzle, however

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 482
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 6:01:21 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I guess I just don't see mass as being intrinsic, so I've adapted "material" to meet my own uses.

Thus you invalidate yourself from participating in pertinent discussions, as you might as well speak in a foreign language that the other people do not understand.
 
Also you have failed to decribe the particles that you consider to be material.


For the first part, it doesn't invalidate me or everything I've said; only things based off the misinterpretation.  As I've already said in the part you didn't quote.  You went too far.

For the second part, no.. no I didn't.  That was up front in something you apparently didn't quote.  I'd also like to point out that material may not be composed of particles; I rather doubt it, myself.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 483
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 6:16:05 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad



........ the differences between the examples of indoctrination that you offered are a matter of the content of the indoctrination, not of its source. The content is clearly different. The principle is not. And both are indoctrination.


.....ok, an answer. Well done. You are wrong in a very specific sense. You imply that degree is irrelevant, only the underlying principle is relevant. Slapping someone's face is an act of violence. Hitting them with a brick is an act of violence. Raping them with a broken bottle is an act of violence. Now are you really going to contend that there is no fundamental difference between those acts?
This is not 'conflating entities and multiplying them needlessly', this is accepting the complex nature of human activity.
So come on, tell us now how you really can't see a fundamental difference between the acts i've suggested above.....or failing that concede the point.
Indoctrination occurs in degrees and is unavoidable in child rearing. Therefore it is the degree that is important. You have attempted to duck the issue of degree.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 484
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 6:30:06 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

That's assuming it's accurate, though, and that it'll go away if it ceases being accurate.


Regardless, outlawing the idea doesn't resolve the basic problem; cf. US post-9/11 "security" measures.


I think you've gone off topic a bit.

My point's that I want people not to randomly think things.  This needn't be achomplished by laws, rules, or anything of the sort.  It can be by simply encouraging productive thought that's supported by scientific findings.

I'm sure you don't want people believing in some things.  What if the police were convinced you did some sort of crime, and one of them was so sure he adequately framed the evidence?  Or what if some guy thought it was productive to steal your things?  Maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean it won't hurt you if he tries!

By the same token, I want the future engineers to know more about kinematics than theology.  I want them performing more advanced stress tests than praying to God.  I want doctors to work off empiracle test data, not hoping for magic to make cures work.  I want farmers fertilizers and pesticides (as appropriate), not doing a dance to Wonka Wikkers, the (newly created) God of the Harvest (hell, there are so many of those, even that arbitrarily chosen name may've been used at some point in history :P).

I'm not knocking the more passive and kind suggestions; it has its advantages.  But it does not serve my purposes so well, nor are my purposes nor ideals disserviced through applying debate and reason to ideas which strike me as unsound.

PS-  I hope this clarifies, although if the 9/11 outlawing reference does connect to this somehow, I'm still entire willing to hear it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

I'm afraid that's true by definition.  At least, by mine; what might you mean by such words?


Ah, but the definition is circular. At least, all definitions I've encountered so far.


My friend, if you say all dogs are "black", then all dogs are "black", but not necessarily black.  It's important to understand the variety of words and differentiate between even very similar homonyms.  In the case just mentioned, one can say that all dogs are "black" by definition.  In the same respect, I define things which interact with our universe as "material" by definition (it's physically apt over what I see to be a vulgar colloquial term).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Care to provide non-circular evidence that you exist?


There's a difference between circular logic and definitions.  How can something not exist with regard to itself?  Do the things in your dream not exist relative to eachother?  If we are deluded- if we're simulations on a computer- would you still not say that we exist with regard to eachother, particularly ourselves?

If I mention a hypothetical world in which there's only a tree on a rock.. does it not exist with regard to itself?  It doesn't exist with regard to us!  And we don't exist with regard to it.

Existence is relative, after all.  :P

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

There are reasons to pursue it, though perhaps not the common ones.


Certainly. Just commenting that if you can manage to resolve the aging issue in your lifetime, you'll have enough money to withdraw to minimize other lifespan-lowering factors, then learn the requisite science to do what you originally intended to do and more. Plus, you would stand a pretty good chance of creating some rather radical shifts in our world.


I hope so.  I'm certainly working for it.

I have a powerful view of the physical world I just need to define.  Sadly, my mathematical skills are vastly inferior to those I'd need to use to do so.  So, I'm trying to work on them.  I put my Math advancement on hold a couple years back, so now I'm resuming it.

I'm finding that scientists and engineers who are short in Math can be wonderful as workers, but not as creators.  The level of Math that (many) great scientists have used is well beyond the level that even modern day Ph.D's are educated in.  I have so much to learn if I hope to even come up to that point.  And that's old Math!

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/22/2008 6:32:10 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 485
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 6:43:44 PM   
CuriousLord


Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Kirata did not seem to be suggesting that you were making a conscious effort in that direction, CuriousLord.

[..]Just going by what you've said on the public side of the board, and suggesting that 1 minute 14 seconds may be inadequate to fully consider what K said.


It's alright, I took no offense.  It's just that he didn't stop to think out the point, or ask about what didn't make sense.  Then ran off without answering a question or accounting for his own statements.

PS-  (Being the reasons why I'm a bit less hesitant to have my fun.  I feel far less guilty over teasing willful ignorance.)

< Message edited by CuriousLord -- 2/22/2008 6:48:06 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 486
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 7:35:47 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

You are too old to be still shooting at straw men.


Care to point out what straw men I am shooting at?

I'm honestly clueless, as my main point has been that religion isn't by definition bad, and that materialism jihads aren't the solution to the problem that religious fundamentalists and blind faith are a symptom of. That and the point that morals, values, customs and beliefs are both inescapable and arbitrary (in the sense that there is no objective standard). I do hold to a naturalist position myself, but the only form of it that could be said to be objective (IMO) is what you get when a child is raised without human contact: feral humans. I'm not of the opinion that such a form of it is desireable.

Again, I do value your input, but I'm not seeing what you're getting at here, so I'd appreciate if you would spell it out for me.

Health,
al-Aswad.



_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 487
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 7:38:03 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

The word "right", coming from you is a puzzle, however


It was part of a question, obviously.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Loveisallyouneed)
Profile   Post #: 488
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 7:56:03 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
I keep wanting to chime in, especially with declarations like "Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity." flying hither and yon.

But I think I'll just lurk and sort of "Brush Up My Shakespreare", so to speak.


Z.




_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 489
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:14:50 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Care to point out what straw men I am shooting at?



Burp. Excuse me. What? You line up all the "propositions" you think I might be making, plink them one by one, and then ask "what straw men"? To simply observe (with zero originality) that compared to anything else human beings are more alike than different can hardly be said to be proposing either a society comprised of bland human soup, a world completely lacking in conflict, or a collapse into entropy. That's a rather ugly load of crap you're carrying around in your head there, and I'd very much appreciate you keeping better track of it.
 
K.
 
 
 
 
 

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 490
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:18:12 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

You are wrong in a very specific sense. You imply that degree is irrelevant, only the underlying principle is relevant.


I'm implying that the degree is independant of the source, and that a degree is only meaningful when measured against a standard. Also, you seem to be positing that a certain standard (namely, yours) is objective and universal, whereas I am positing that it is not. Most importantly, though, my point was that the relevant bit is what is said, not whether the person saying it is religious or not. The ethic of reciprocity is an equally valid and equally "good" ethic regardless of whether it is derived from a religious source or a secular one.

quote:

Slapping someone's face is an act of violence. Hitting them with a brick is an act of violence. Raping them with a broken bottle is an act of violence.


Correct. And even words can be violence.

quote:

Now are you really going to contend that there is no fundamental difference between those acts?


Fundamental? No.

Substantial? Yes.

quote:

This is not 'conflating entities and multiplying them needlessly', this is accepting the complex nature of human activity.


Actually, you seem to be missing the point. There are palatable beliefs and praxes, and there are unpalatable beliefs and praxes. The condition of whether those are religious or secular in nature and/or origins is indeed multiplying entities needlessly- a violation of Occam's Razor, which is arguably fundamental to any rational secular approach. And the conflation is between certain religions, religion as a concept, secularity as a concept, and the contents of the religious or secular beliefs and praxes at hand. Which was what I tried to illustrate through my original example.

Let's use two very concrete examples:

I suspect we can both agree that the praxis female genital mutilation is unpalatable. To state that the praxis of female genital mutilation in a religious context is unpalatable, constitutes multiplying entities needlessly. To state that Islam is unpalatable because some Muslims practice female genital mutilation and hold up their religion as an excuse (despite their holy book making it quite clear that they should not defile the body), constitutes conflating entities. It is more accurate, and more concise, to say that this specific praxis is unpalatable. Going as far as to say that beliefs that support the praxis is unpalatable is still reasonable, although that can open the door to the notion of mindcrime.

I hope we can both agree that the praxis of surgically assigning intersexed babies a gender based on what is convenient for the surgeon and without consulting the parents- referred to as intersex genital mutilation by opponents of the practice- is unpalatable. To state that intersex genital mutilation in a secular context is unpalatable, again needlessly multiplies entities. To state that secular humanism is unpalatable because some secular humanists practice this, constitutes conflating entities. It is, again, more accurate, and more concise, to state that this praxis is unpalatable. Note, by the way, that the same arguments being forwarded in defense of the practice (the need for a clearly defined binary gender to fit into the cultural context of a modern secular humanist society) applies equally to the praxis of female genital mutilation.

And, touching on your point about degrees, I think we can safely say that the net negative impact of either of these praxes alone outweighs the Jewish praxis of male circumcision, although it should be equally obvious that there is a principle at work here that is not only similar in character, but essentially identical. So, again, the matter of degree is not contingent on the secular vs religious origins of a praxis; and again, as non-Jewish boys are circumcised on a routine basis, we can pretty safely say that conflating it with Judaism is also a far stretch from a reasonable assertion.

Whether a belief system is secular or religious is a red herring.

Substance matters.

quote:

So come on, tell us now how you really can't see a fundamental difference between the acts i've suggested above.....or failing that concede the point.


See the above answer and explanation.

quote:

Indoctrination occurs in degrees and is unavoidable in child rearing. Therefore it is the degree that is important. You have attempted to duck the issue of degree.


No, I am noting that degrees occur along an axis... a yardstick.
And, in principle, it does not matter whether that yardstick is secular or religious.
Further, I would posit that the choice of yardstick is arbitrary, in that morals are a human construct.

I hope that significantly clears up my position.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 491
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:49:30 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

even words can be violence.


It sometimes seems to me that the meanings of English words are being systematically reformed in the image of a political point of view. Anybody remember "sticks and stones"? How did we get from there to acts being protected "speech" and words being capable of "violence"? I mean, what the holy fuck are people smoking these days?
 
K.
 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/22/2008 10:01:44 PM >

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 492
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:50:12 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

My point's that I want people not to randomly think things.


Mine is that they do just that, whether religious or secular.

It's part of being human. James Randi is eminently aware of this, and uses it consciously to sway the unthinking masses from one unconsidered position to another unconsidered position. I have no doubt that his own position is well considered, but he clearly realizes that it's easier to sway people than to make them think for themselves. I would posit that organized religion would never have made it up to modern times at all if it weren't for this fact. By all means do try to cause people to think. I do it all the times. Sometimes with significant success. Other times with no success at all. Sometimes I just say "aww, fuck it" and sway people instead, but I realize that is the inferior option by my own standards.

Sweeping dust under the rug can make the surface appear prettier, but your asthma will still act up.

quote:

I'm sure you don't want people believing in some things.


You are wrong. There are things I don't want people to do, but I couldn't really care much less about what they believe. If I were to go on a campaign to change all the beliefs I disagree with, I would be burnt at the friggin' stake. And it wouldn't just be the church crowd that would be throwing wood on the pyre. Ideally, I'd like more tolerance in the world. For people to leave each other alone, rather than stick their nose in other people's business and try to decide how they should live their lives or how they should think. That is an ideal that neither religious groups, nor secular groups, are particularly inclined to support. So I go on about my life, and let them have theirs, doing what I can along the way to encourage tolerance in those I meet.

quote:

What if the police were convinced you did some sort of crime, and one of them was so sure he adequately framed the evidence?


Wouldn't be the first time. I am fortunate enough to be intimately familiar with the law. Comes back to what I said: I don't want him to perform the act of framing the evidence, but I couldn't care less what he thinks. If he does his job as he is supposed to, that'll do just fine. And any justice system will make mistakes at times, that's a fact of life. The alternative is to set up a new Stasi, which happens to open a lot of doors that are best left closed in any current society.

quote:

Or what if some guy thought it was productive to steal your things? Maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean it won't hurt you if he tries!


Usually, it hurts him. Which is just the way it goes. It's his attempt to steal that bugs me, not whether he thinks it worthwhile. For all I care, he can fantasize about raping me six ways from monday before impaling me on the flag pole outside city hall. Lord knows I've got my own shit to keep straight. Again, it comes down to actions, not mindcrime.

quote:

By the same token, I want the future engineers to know more about kinematics than theology. I want them performing more advanced stress tests than praying to God. I want doctors to work off empiracle test data, not hoping for magic to make cures work.


In short, you want them to do their job. I have no problem with that.

quote:

I want farmers fertilizers and pesticides (as appropriate), not doing a dance to Wonka Wikkers, the (newly created) God of the Harvest (hell, there are so many of those, even that arbitrarily chosen name may've been used at some point in history :P).


Quite so. Not that it hurts for them to say "I hope this harvest will be good," or even some religious equivalent.

My own faith emphasizes the point that you are the one living your life; I agree that deferring responsibility to a deity is harmful.

quote:

PS-  I hope this clarifies, although if the 9/11 outlawing reference does connect to this somehow, I'm still entire willing to hear it out.


It connects in that people have pursued the illusion of safety aggressively since then, at the expense of real safety. Attacking the symptom of religious zealotry by acting against religion as a concept, rather than using it as a handy marker to keep tabs on who the dangerous people are and realizing that the symptom is not the disease, seems to be another instance of the same strategy. As usual, religion, like most human endeavours, comes down to people. I'm a big fan of addressing root causes, rather than treating symptoms. Instead of making a parking lot of the middle east, giving them the Internet with unlimited access to porn and all sorts of weird ideas will have a much more productive outcome in the long run, because it inspires thought and exposure to different views, which causes change to happen from within.

quote:

My friend, if you say all dogs are "black", then all dogs are "black", but not necessarily black.  It's important to understand the variety of words and differentiate between even very similar homonyms.  In the case just mentioned, one can say that all dogs are "black" by definition.  In the same respect, I define things which interact with our universe as "material" by definition (it's physically apt over what I see to be a vulgar colloquial term).


The question was one of whether you exist at all. A pretty solid scientist (and secular humanist of an atheist persuasion, I might add) that I know actually corrected me on that point when I noted that science can prove certain things. He pointed out that all the proof that we even exist is circular or axiomatic. Should you care to prove otherwise, that would be most interesting. He's both a lot more intelligent than I am (one or two orders of magnitude would be a conservative guess) and a lot more well versed in epistemology and scientific method, so it may not be surprising that I could not find a flaw in his argumentation.

quote:

There's a difference between circular logic and definitions.  How can something not exist with regard to itself?  Do the things in your dream not exist relative to eachother?  If we are deluded- if we're simulations on a computer- would you still not say that we exist with regard to eachother, particularly ourselves?


I would say so. I cannot prove it, however, which makes it a belief of mine.

quote:

I'm finding that scientists and engineers who are short in Math can be wonderful as workers, but not as creators.


Such has been my experience, at well. Perhaps it has something to do with giving creators a language to express themselves in.

Health,
al-Aswad.

< Message edited by Aswad -- 2/22/2008 10:10:00 PM >


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 493
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:52:58 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

I keep wanting to chime in, especially with declarations like "Almost every Western ethic can be traced to Judeo-Christianity." flying hither and yon. But I think I'll just lurk and sort of "Brush Up My Shakespreare", so to speak.


Care to explain which fallacy I committed?

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 494
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:54:53 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Burp. Excuse me. What? You line up all the "propositions" you think I might be making, plink them one by one, and then ask "what straw men"? To simply observe (with zero originality) that compared to anything else human beings are more alike than different can hardly be said to be proposing either a society comprised of bland human soup, a world completely lacking in conflict, or a collapse into entropy. That's a rather ugly load of crap you're carrying around in your head there, and I'd very much appreciate you keeping better track of it.


Seems I misread what you said, then. You can be somewhat terse at times (which I like, mind you).

My apologies for misinterpreting your statements.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 495
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 9:57:23 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

You can be somewhat terse at times



Me?
 
Heh

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 496
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 10:09:36 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

It sometimes seems to me that the meanings of English words are being systematically reformed in the image of a political point of view. Anybody remember "sticks and stones"? How did we get from there to acts being "protected speech" and words being capable of "violence"? I mean, what the holy fuck are people smoking these days?


It's a matter of degrees. Sort of like how relational violence is something people have become more aware of lately. Krishnamurti is more elegant in wording it than I can be, though, so may I suggest you look it up, rather than relying on my second-hand summary?

As for the meanings of English words, they continue to evolve, as words have since back when we had 4 or so. It's nothing new, and it'll still be going on a millenium from now. I'm pretty sure there were some men who were cranky about how the meaning of flæsk and mete changed over time. Yet, we're pretty comfortable with those new meanings, because we're used to them. Hell, I wasn't overly happy that the word "hacker," once a term of high praise, has now changed to mean "computer criminal."

If I want to communicate, however, I can't strive to hold back the natural evolution of language.

Health,
al-Aswad.



_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 497
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 10:11:46 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

You can be somewhat terse at times



Me?
 
Heh







_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 498
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 10:27:10 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
Huh? Well, I am happy that the Dalai LaMa has superceded such a need to demonstrate the modelling that the Western Echoers represent.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 499
RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective - 2/22/2008 10:37:26 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Huh? Well, I am happy that the Dalai LaMa has superceded such a need to demonstrate the modelling that the Western Echoers represent.


I'm afraid you lost me there. Mind clarifying what you are saying here, particularly the underligned segment?

Health,
al-Aswad.

P.S.: FWIW, I think the man has a lot to contribute to the world, and that so does Buddhism in general, but I just don't understand what you're saying here.

< Message edited by Aswad -- 2/22/2008 10:38:31 PM >


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 500
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective Page: <<   < prev  22 23 24 [25] 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.566