# philosophy and spirituality



## person3

some people adhere to philosophy and do so against spirituality...

and it seems to me to be like "i have the answer, i figured it out all by myself, i don't need to depend on a higher power to help me, i dont' need to trust something which i don't know won't betray me".

some people adhere to spirituality along with philosophy or without it...

and it seems to me like they are saying "i dont' have all the answers, I don't know, I can't do it all myself, I need someone else to help me, I trust that even if i don't know this being well enough or their intentions they can still help me"

and looking at who is so deeply divided in all the arguments about religion and spirituality and philosophy and logic...etc...

it seems that a lot of our arguments over these issues are actually about things more personal. look above at the first few paragraphs: you have some people that refuse to acknowledge their lack of control, some people who refuse to trust something because it's NOT them and because they don't know it inside out, some people who claim not to need such a thing.

and I'm not trying to say that religion or faith or spirituality is the right thing for us. when applied in the wrong way (like depending on god in a magical-thinking type way or trying to decipher some kabbalistic code or numerology) that stuff CAN hurt us. We do need our reason and logic and intuition, yes. but what i'm saying is look at WHY you hate religion or spirituality, or why you love it, or why you're on the fence...if it's because of personal convictions you reached and you have established a code for yourself, that's one thing...but if it stirs violent rage, if you have a sudden outrage at the idea of having faith in the unknown, ask yourself WHY does that PARTICULAR aspect of it all bother you so much? could it be you have a problem jumping into the waters of trust with a person you hardly know? could it be that you can't trust yourself and your own intuition to make the right decisions and you have to constantly think and reason everything to the point of near OCD? Could it be the reason you are so prepared for all of life's disasters is that you're afraid to live in the first place, or is it because there is a true and proven threat of, say, a nuclear attack? Where does the logic end and the obsessing begin? Where does the intellectual talk end and the violent reaction towards concepts like unconditional love and trust begin?

Just stuff to think about. I know i am.


----------



## CECIL

person3 said:


> when applied in the wrong way (like depending on god in a magical-thinking type way or trying to decipher some kabbalistic code or numerology) that stuff CAN hurt us.


This is the only part of your post I had a problem with. Namely because I'm beginning to explore these possibilities. Please explain.


----------



## Monkeydust

If you're insinuating that in some way adhering to rational beliefs based on actual evidence, as opposed to religion, dogma or mere superstition, is in some way a result of personal failings or a neurotic personality, then I don't agree at all.

You might have a point with regard to some people going too far in "needing" to explain stuff, but beyond that it seems to be a bit of a misrepresentation of the issues at hand.

In particular, this dichotomy annoyed me:



> some people adhere to philosophy and do so against spirituality...
> 
> and it seems to me to be like "i have the answer, i figured it out all by myself, i don't need to depend on a higher power to help me, i dont' need to trust something which i don't know won't betray me".


vs



> some people adhere to spirituality along with philosophy or without it...
> 
> and it seems to me like they are saying "i dont' have all the answers, I don't know, I can't do it all myself, I need someone else to help me, I trust that even if i don't know this being well enough or their intentions they can still help me"


The truth is actually the *opposite* to that. The people who _don't _ commit to spirituality or theism are the ones saying "we don't know, and we don't have the answers". It's the people that _do_ adhere to religion and spirituality who claim to have all the answers "from the sky", and claim certainty in that.

I just think it's going a bit far to suggest that some of our opinions on religion and the like are rooted in some psychological "fear of the unknown".


----------



## person3

it depends.

I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on.

I have gotten into an argument with an atheist friend who was being really awful to me just because I said something about meeting a rabbi who allegedly works miracles. I only believed it because of the way he happened to be around at the exact point my step-grandfather's terminally ill condition made a complete turnaround. So I thought "hm there might be something there". and she just went off like "people who believe are stupid"

and it's like...hardcore atheists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists. I guess the people who admit to NOT having all the answers would be a non-fundamental religious person or an agnostic.

I'll look at the rest of hte reply later....

CECIL...i'll get to that sometime later too...


----------



## person3

oh i don't believe superstition or dogma are good things at all. I think faith and surrender of control are helpful (not that i use those things like I should)...but I don't think that organized religion or magical thinking are helpful...that was not what i meant...


----------



## Martinelv

> I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on


That's simply not true Person3. As an atheist, I 'lack faith'. End of story. However, I *do *have strong views on organised religion which has nothing to do with my atheism, at all. It's a point of view. Atheists do not assert (or they shouldn't) that 'there is no god', because it is (as the religious delight in pointing out) that it is impossible to disprove. I'm open to that the idea that there 'might be' a god, might be, but I really really really really doubt it. In the same way that I doubt that there is a leprachaun under my bed. Why don't people understand this? Why don't they understand that it is the religious who are totally and utterly set in their beliefs, not atheists. I'm going to say it for one last time - Atheism = A-THEISM = Lack OF BELIF. That's all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Atheism might lead to a strong hatred of organised dogmatic religion (as in my case), but not neccessarily so. I could fall into your catagory of an EXTREME ATHEIST (although I don't like the term, and it's meaningless really), as I despise religion, for personal reasons and otherwise. What's wrong with that? If relgion didn't cause so much suffering on behalf of their imaginary friend, then I wouldn't hate it, but it does - so I do.

I don't understand why people are allowed, ney - *encouraged* to despise all manner of things that cause people harm, yet whenever an atheist dares to criticise religion, he's booed and hissed. I don't understand and never will. I'm not talking about personal spiritual beliefs here, I don't give a damn - I'm talking about organised religion. If organised religion were a drug, it'd be class A, I tell ya.

Cocaine makes you feel good for a while but I don't see anyone in a rush to sing it's praises.


----------



## Monkeydust

> I guess to clarify it I am talking about EXTREME atheists who are the same as EXTREME religious fanatics. Both would have that "I have all the answers" thing going on.


I woudn't say that's true.

"Extreme" Atheists are the same as all other atheists in they say that it doesn't make sense to believe in a God when the sum total of evidence for his existence is zero.

They only differ from others who believe this view in that, because of the conviction that you need evidence to back up some kind of faith, or because faith should not be imposed by those who are not themselves infallible, they have strong views against organized religion.

They don't say "I have all the answers" at all. They merely say the religious fanatics that they *don't* have the answers and therefore they should be fought at every turn when they try to act as if they do.

I can see where you're coming from. There is a superficial similarity between the two viewpoints. But the comparison breaks down. Here's the difference as I see it:

- On the one hand, religious fundamentalists dogmatically and stubbornly pursue a belief, and very often compel others to do the same, even though it is based on what amounts to "blind faith", without incontrevertible evidence.

- Atheists don't have any "blind faith". They simply have *no* faith in areas where the matter hasn't been proved with any certainty at all and with no substantive evidence to back it up. They don't claim to have all the answers, they just claim to know that the religious people don't have all the ansers either.


----------



## person3

guys...I used to be very much atheist. I totally understand the standpoint.

The only reason i'm NOT an atheist right now is because I don't FEEL it to necessarily be right for me. It doesn't make the sense that it used to. It's hard to explain. Once I got DP i couldn't be atheist anymore, sounds reverse of everyone else.

And Martin it's not like you get booed and hissed for saying comments about religion without throwing in a few sarcastic punches yourself. If you're going to argue these things the way I've seen you do, you're gonna get hit. And it's not because you have a few qualms with the church.

And I guess we could talk all day about all the bad things religion has done to people, but

a) one doesn't have to be part of an organized religion to believe in something

and

b) i think a lot of us forget that a lot of GOOD things come out of organized religion. People have it in their nature to form tribes based on SOME kind of common ground and are willing to fight the other "tribes" to near death over it. Religion just happens to be one of the particularly strong bonding grounds...but it also forms secure, safe socieites for some people; it gives them a sense of identity, existence, and a past and importance (which are good things to have psychologically especially in a world with billions of people), it brings families and friends together and at times can help keep kids out of trouble.

I don't think religion is ALL great...when religion enters politics it's quite awful. But the major organized religions are kind of like political parties anyway.

I just wonder why some people in this world are so ADAMANT about everyone hearing their viewpoint, be it religious or atheist. I have seen both sides of it and I don't think it has much to do with spirituality at all. Examining my own reasons why I chose to be Atheist I think there were other factors playing a part besides the philosophy of it. I think there were a lot of personal hangups involved.

If that's not the case for you, though, fantastic, and I apologize for assuming otherwise. But I know it's not that way for everyone out there.
And I just wonder because of the motivations in OTHER atheists I've seen, if it has something to do with personality traits that make people prone to psychological disorders.


----------



## Martinelv

> If you're going to argue these things the way I've seen you do, you're gonna get hit.


I don't mean it that way - I don't care about people using religion to attack me, in fact I encourage it. Adds fuel to the fire. I know I'm a sarcastic bastard so I accept it in return. What I really mean is that religion is _still_ a taboo subject, and it pisses me off when the faithful hide behind a screen of 'offence'. That really gets my goat.



> i think a lot of us forget that a lot of GOOD things come out of organized religion


Yes - in the same way that a car crash provides work for paramedics. I'm sure that communities of faith gives comfort, identity (is that a good thing ? needing others to provide an identity for you?), security and an opportunity to have a nice cup of tea and a sing-song on a Sunday, to their followers only of course, but what else? If we could divide up the amount of altruism that people provide, you will find that only a very small slice comes from organised religious groups. They are too busy either reinforcing each others faith or blindly discriminating against others who don't believe in the 'right' imaginary friend. Even now, in this day and age, the less fortunate and more vulnerable people of the world are preyed upon by religious missionaries - with the offer of a bit of food and water in return for life-long obedience to their imaginary friend. Great swathes of indigenous culture are wiped out in a single stroke - it's a f*****g tragedy.

Average Joe on the street keeps evil at bay, or at least tries to, because of simple good human nature, without the shackles and dogma of organised religion. Some people make the astonishing claim that you have to be part of a religious 'group' to perform acts of kindness. Incredible.



> I've seen, if it has something to do with personality traits that make people prone to psychological disorders.


That's very foxy of you Person3. If only dear Herod were here to enjoy this.


----------



## Sojourner

"Yes - in the same way that a car crash provides work for paramedics."

Oh, yes, we all know of the schools and hospitals atheists have established throughout the world. Their contribution is just astounding.


----------



## Scattered

Atheists don't have the sway over the masses needed to extort large sums of money to advance their viewpoint or influence.


----------



## Sojourner

That's because the ones that get to have sway are the ones that do good things.


----------



## CECIL

Unless you count McDonald's as atheists 

Look past your logical mind for the answers. Faith cannot be quantified nor measured just as you can never prove the existance or non-existance of god. By the same token blind faith cannot help you understand mathematics - the two are mutually exclusive in their current form in our society.


----------



## Sojourner

Of course in today's world atheists do good things; when speaking of long-term attitudes, however, one generally looks to historical realities and trends, and the facts there are both self-evident and clear to an unbiased viewer.

The facts of the historical reality are always going to be the facts of the matter when one looks at long-term attitudes.

Atheists doing good things is just a blip on the radar screen -- it's so new that it is quite properly perceived as only a recent occurrence. That's because it IS only recent.

The provision, of course, of medical services that kill unborn human creatures, however, can never be seen as good, except by people who are delusionary.


----------



## person3

wow, sojourner, you must seem to know everything. what a genius! oh my god you sould have like totally won a nobel peace prize!

idiot.


----------



## person3

_The provision, of course, of medical services that kill unborn human creatures, however, can never be seen as good, except by people who are delusionary_

well you can wheel me to the god damned asylum then!

btw something is not alive if it is not conscious, which it is NOT for the duration in which the VAST majority of women terminate it.


----------



## Homeskooled

Hmmmm.....I dont think we want to start using that as a medical definition for death-"Not alive if not conscious." Currently, the medically accepted definition of dead is total brain death with no hope of recovery. If someone has the ability to regain consciousness, which happens all the time with head injuries and most certainly will happen with a baby, you cant "pull the plug on them". Not that this matters much. I believe its by week five that an unborn baby has brain waves, making it by your own definition alive. A great deal of women dont know they are even pregnant by week five. Terminations usually happen around the third and fourth month, I believe. To be honest, science is making it harder and harder to rationalize abortion. We really have to play around with the definitions of alive or dead, conscious or unconscious, human or inhuman to rationalize it, and it always seems to fall short. Any argument you can use to negate a baby's humanity can be used against a full-fledged adult or an infant outside of the womb, and they eventually begin to sound like arguments that the German eugenics movement used. I've even heard people argue that since unborn children dont have a normal IQ, they really dont qualify as humans. Well, that doesnt bode well for people with Down Syndrome now does it?

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Sojourner

Without the *heartless*, *selfish*, *abominably evil*, and *satanic ** violence *of some alleged humans against innocent human life (probably with better working brains than the psychotic monsters who kill them), a fertilized egg would develop into a baby.

All who support the unjust killing of innocent human life have a special place waiting for them unless they stop following the father of lies.


----------



## Monkeydust

I'm drunk but...ah shut up.

Christians like you annoy me.


----------



## Sojourner

I know, Monk, but that's my mission (or at least part of it) :lol:


----------



## rainboteers

Sojourner,

I consider myself to be very spiritual and what you wrote annoyed me too. Telling people they have a "special place" waiting for them if they dont stop following a father of lies... really now :roll:


----------



## rainboteers

I didnt mean to be offensive with that post. I just get annoyed when people say things like that. I dont think it's right... Thou shall not judge (or condemn others to a "special place") you know?


----------



## Sojourner

So you don't think people who kill innocent unborn human creatures should be told openly and often that they are committing supremely evil acts?

It is my opinion that there is a special place for them; however, I am not God, but it is inconceivable to me that God approves of their evil acts and will not eternally punish them.

Of course, the key is that anyone who now supports the murder of human creatures in their mothers' wombs -- and even the mothers who have had abortions already -- can renounce those evil acts and be forgiven. It's not like there's no recourse for someone who really didn't understand what they were doing at the time they did it. They can always turn their back on evil and avoid eternal separation from God.

Bottom line: Having had an abortion does not necessarily condemn a person. Turning one's life toward the good instead of toward evils like murder of innocent human creatures can wipe out one's previous evil acts. God's not interested in beating us about the head for the rest of our lives for the mistakes we have made. He's interested in making us GOOD.

In the Liturgy of the Hours of the Church, when we pray that God will "protect us from all evil," we are really praying that He protect us from DOING evil. The doing of evil is the real evil, which is much worse than suffering evil because of what it brings us eternally.

DOING evil is what earns Hell. Suffering evil is what earns Paradise with Christ. (Not that evil is good, of course, but I'm trying to convey the idea that doing evil is the enemy we seek protection from when we pray "protect us from all evil.")

Some people think "protect us from all evil" means only that we are pleading for God to spare us from suffering evil. Well, we mean that, but we also mean we need his help to keep us from DOING evil.

Many people discount religious belief and prayer because of a profound misunderstanding of what is actually being prayed for.

However, back to the point. I do utterly and completely believe that sins like murder are punished if we do not repent of those sins and change our orientation from self to God.


----------



## Monkeydust

At least we can take comfort in the fact that, when we've been condemnded to hell, we won't have to put up with Sojourner. 

AND we'll get to meet cool people like Hitler and Napoleon. In Heaven the best you'll get is Cliff Richard.


----------



## rainboteers

I do see what your saying again sorry if i was offensive, but I believe there is a big difference between abortion and just killing an innocent person.

I dont believe in abortion and it is completely wrong for ME, but I dont claim to know what is right and wrong for everyone else. If that makes any sense.

I would also never tell someone that they are going to hell, who the hell am I to say that. :wink:


----------



## Sojourner

rainboteers said:


> I do see what your saying again sorry if i was offensive, but I believe there is a big difference between abortion and just killing an innocent person.


What might that difference be? That one is totally *innocent* and the other is totally *what*? There is no difference: they are both *human* and they are both *totally innocent*.

But I'll bet you want to _rank_ them in value. Is that it? You think a human unborn child is of less value than a born person? Well, see, that's really the whole point. We don't get to rank people as not being worthy of living. But if you would like to live in such a society, perhaps it can be arranged to place you and the others here who want to go into a society where DP is equal to being an unborn child in the safety of its mother's womb. Then, hey, all you proud DPers and all the unborn human creatures can die together. Wouldn't that be nice? Frankly, it would save your society electricity doing you all in together. Maybe they could bash your skull in and suck out the contents of your brain just like they do with the human creatures. Sounds good? Sounds not so good? Feeling a little digust, are we? Well, the same thing is being done today to unborn human children, and personally, I think those who defend the practice ought to know intimately what they are supporting and advocating so strongly. But let's face it, DPers are as low on the ranking scale as anybody, 'ya know what I mean? :lol:



rainboteers said:


> I dont believe in abortion and it is completely wrong for ME, but I dont claim to know what is right and wrong for everyone else. If that makes any sense.


That's because you were brought up in a moral desert.



rainboteers said:


> I would also never tell someone that they are going to hell, who the hell am I to say that. :wink:


Oh, I didn't say that. I believe there is a special space for those who kill innocent people. You -- in your own mind -- filled in the blanks about what that place was. Never did I mention the word Hell. You thought "Hell" because you have a guilty conscience, but yet you are so brainwashed that you really do not know right from wrong.

" ..... I believe there is a big difference between abortion and just killing an innocent person."

If you believe that, you are beyond hope until you wake up. An unborn child is not any LESS INNOCENT than a born person, is it???

Well, then....?


----------



## rainboteers

oh nevermind, i dont know how to respond. I thought that was really mean though. Yikes!


----------



## Sojourner

Rain, look, you know I like you, but we are arguing a point, not having tea together.

What would you call it if not a moral desert when a person thinks there's no real difference between two totally innocent human creatures who are both living, growing, feeling, listening, experiencing, receiving nourishment, moving, and so forth?

I don't really believe you are immoral. I use strong language not to antagonize you but to make you listen to what I am actually saying instead of deflecting it automatically -- to get you to deal with the issue itself.

When I play Miss Manners, people don't ever get down to explaining or really trying to justify their positions. And I maintain that many hold positions that are untenable when looked at soberly. So I do the equivalent of shaking you by being "mean" or saying outrageous things. Don't take the outrageous things personally -- but please do try to rise to my bait or the conversation will end in the same way that they all do: with no real progress in my understanding of you or your understanding of me.

I yell to get you to give me a reason for your belief.

I've tried the other ways, and frankly, some people here respond very well to the bait I throw out in the form of my writing. But I don't say "Idiot" and run off in a nice little hissy fit. I am provoking you and anyone else who disagrees.

Either we frankly share our reasons for our beliefs, or we don't. I'd prefer to offer reasons for my beliefs and hear your reasons, but GETTING reasons from people here can be like willing not to "have" DP.

So, to all of you people, once and for all, I am a remarkably flawed person who's trying to get you to critically examine your beliefs. You might even say I'm in league with Scattered, who thinks I haven't examined mine and says outrageous things to me. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, although he tends to scream an epithet and go running off to hide from me, too.

The reason many of you think you cannot condemn abortion is that you have never heard anybody say the things that I say -- you should have, but you haven't, and it's not your fault. It's because in the US, the highest court of the land actually agreed with you that baby-killing is fine.

But that's going to change, I hope.

At any rate, nobody sits down and chooses to think wrongly. But we all do so. You seem like a sensible person, but I have asked you several times and you refuse to answer, so I guess I'm done with talking to you.

You maintain killing an unborn baby and killing the man on the corner are two different things, but you cannot or will not tell me why.

Moral desert has now also become mental desert!


----------



## rainboteers

okay sojourner but when you are so rude to me, i discount all you say, and i have a hard time respecting your opinion. I wasnt hurtful to you, i see no reason for you to be hurtful to me. If you want me to listen and respect what you have to say, please say it in a nicer way. I dont respond well to what you are doing. I focus more on the fact that you were mean than on what you are trying to say.


----------



## Sojourner

rainboteers said:


> okay sojourner but when you are so rude to me, i discount all you say, and i have a hard time respecting your opinion. I wasnt hurtful to you, i see no reason for you to be hurtful to me. If you want me to listen and respect what you have to say, please say it in a nicer way. I dont respond well to what you are doing. I focus more on the fact that you were mean than on what you are trying to say.


I understand. Okay, I will be nice. Thank you for being willing to continue.

Why do you say "...I believe there is a big difference between abortion and just killing an innocent person"?


----------



## rainboteers

well this could get complicated, but i think that the intentions are different. People who have abortions do not believe that the baby is alive so they are not intentionally trying to kill an innocent person. The intentions are completely different you know? But like i said i would never do it, it would be wrong to me. Thanks for changing your tone, much easier to discuss like this. :wink:


----------



## Sojourner

rainboteers said:


> well this could get complicated, but i think that the intentions are different. People who have abortions do not believe that the baby is alive so they are not intentionally trying to kill an innocent person.


Thanks, Rain! ; ) 

That's really the question: why do they not think that a living being is not alive? Any measure you apply to the question of whether a fetus is "alive" comes out positive. There are no measures that can applied to a fetus that provides the answer, "Dead."

The degree to which the human creature can act on its own in the world is not a measure of whether it is alive or not. For example, is my 95-year-old mother who has Alzheimer's and doesn't know her family dead? Of course not. She is alive. Just so is a fetus. It can't solve equations, just as my mother can't, but it has life, just as she does.



rainboteers said:


> The intentions are completely different you know?


No, I do not know what you mean by the "intentions" being completely different.

But even if they were completely different (and I hope you explain what you mean by "intentions" because it seems to me that killing either a human unborn child or a living human is a simple intention to remove the human creature from the scene, period), does any difference in "intention" have anything to do with whether the fetus is alive or not? I don't think so. Do you? In other words, is an unborn child any less alive because some "intention" is different?

If two roast beef sandwiches are sitting on the kitchen counter and Igor eats one because he is hungry and Dmitry eats the other because he is bored, does that make what they ate any less of a roast-beef sandwich?



rainboteers said:


> But like i said i would never do it, it would be wrong to me. Thanks for changing your tone, much easier to discuss like this. :wink:


Well, I am glad to hear that -- we'd not have gone this far if you had been an actual promoter of it, I am sure. :lol:


----------



## Martinelv

> Oh, yes, we all know of the schools and hospitals atheists have established throughout the world. Their contribution is just astounding.


You know, as you get older you come to realise that there is a time and place when you just have to hold your hands up and admit you have been out-manouvered by stunning ignorance and idiocy of collosal proportions.

And yes, inbetween tip-toeing around each others sensibilities, that is an insult. I'm sick to the bone of this kind of uninformed moronic garbage.

Good day to you.


----------



## Sojourner

"You know, as you get older you come to realise that there is a time and place when you just have to hold your hands up and admit you have been out-manouvered by stunning ignorance and idiocy of collosal proportions."

That's hardly a mature and thoughtful view; it's a little child on the ground screaming and yelling and flailing his limbs in the air because he cannot win by logical argument.

"And yes, inbetween tip-toeing around each others sensibilities, that is an insult. I'm sick to the bone of this kind of moronic garbage."

Those who cannot use argument further reflect the paucity of their ability to think by supposing that using insults is a good substitute.


----------



## Martinelv

> That's hardly a mature and thoughtful view


 :lol: I reserve my right to be immature, especially when talking about imaginary friends. That's what children do, yeah?



> because he cannot win by logical argument


This gets better and better. Sojourner, friend, when you are not spouting wanton gibberish or posting links to some fanatical religious website, I have failed to notice one coherent arguement for whatever the hell it is you are promoting. Which is why I can't be arsed to reply. Make some sense brother and perhaps you'll see the darker side of my soul.



> Those who cannot use argument further reflect the paucity of their ability to think by supposing that using insults is a good substitute.


My initial insult was only a mild retort. I can do much much better, but you have to say something to deserve such extravagance.


----------



## Sojourner

"I reserve my right to be immature, especially when talking about imaginary friends. That's what children do, yeah?"

The problem with trying to talk to people who have no self-respect is that they can show no respect for others and therefore discussion breaks down earlier rather than later.

"This gets better and better. Sojourner, friend, when you are not spouting wanton gibberish or posting links to some fanatical religious website, I have failed to notice one coherent arguement for whatever the hell it is you are promoting. Which is why I can't be arsed to reply. Make some sense brother and perhaps you'll see the darker side of my soul"

The Vatican is a fanatical religious website? To you, I suppose it is.

Right, whatever I am saying, on principle you disagree. You don't know what it is that I'm saying, but you reject it outright. Well, at least you admit it. But then, even a parrot can form words.

"My initial insult was only a mild retort. I can do much much better, but you have to say something to deserve such extravagance."
Oh, my, I am quaking in my boots. :roll:


----------



## Martinelv

> The problem with trying to talk to people who have no self-respect is that they can show no respect for others and therefore discussion breaks down earlier rather than later


Did you get that from 'Rent-a-Quote' ? I think you'll find the reality is quite different. And how do you presume to know that I don't have any self-respect ? I think I'm wonderful. :wink: Who am I to argue when the voices in my head keep telling me so ?



> The Vatican is a fanatical religious website? To you, I suppose it is.


Yes, it is.



> Right, whatever I am saying, on principle you disagree. You don't know what it is that I'm saying, but you reject it outright. Well, at least you admit it.


I don't reject anything you say, because you aren't saying anything other than a litanty of badly sewn together statements of-what-you-take-as-fact, so there is nothing to reject. On the rare occassion when you say something that is so astonishingly bigoted and misinformed that it flashes from the screen like a big fat neon sign, then - and only then, will I take issue.



> Oh, my, I am quaking in my boots.


Be afraid, be very afraid !! 

Anyway, that's enough pointless bickering for me today. Toodle-pip.


----------



## CECIL

There is a god, and "he" loves ALL of us. There's NOTHING you can do to change that.


----------



## Scattered

Oh thats good. Thanks for that statement of pure unadulterated fact. I don't have to go through the trouble of trying to validate it now.


----------



## Beth

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeesus.

You'd think that people who supposedly spend all their time faced with their inner selves and the weirdness of reality would be unable to sustain the crusty outer layer of belief-is-what-I-want-it-to-be-because-it-makes-me-feel-so-niiiice.

If God's that easy then what is there to be scared of?? How could anything like DP matter if you can decide what the world is like according to what you want it to be? Maybe that's why you have DP, because a part of you is aware of how stupid and animal that is.

Spirituality is interesting. It shapes my whole life at the moment. I am an X-TREME ATHEIST and should be shot.

Pretty hard to respect human life given the examples we're confronted with everyday. I might be able to like religious people if they were nice but most of them don't even bloody buy fairtrade.

Wow. Now I'll have no friends.

Christianity spreads AIDS. Not among Christians though.


----------



## Martinelv

I'm in love. Beth - will you marry me?


----------



## Sojourner

> If God's that easy then what is there to be scared of?? How could anything like DP matter if you can decide what the world is like according to what you want it to be? Maybe that's why you have DP, because a part of you is aware of how stupid and animal that is.


Nobody has ever said it was _easy_, Beth. :lol:


----------



## Beth

> Beth - will you marry me?


Ah good, I do still have friends.


----------



## CECIL

Beth said:


> You'd think that people who supposedly spend all their time faced with their inner selves and the weirdness of reality would be unable to sustain the crusty outer layer of belief-is-what-I-want-it-to-be-because-it-makes-me-feel-so-niiiice.


Step 1: Don't confuse what I am saying with the kind of messages you get on Christmas and Birthday cards. There's a lot of people around who sustain denial about feeling absolutely terrified of themselves and feeling completely worthless. These people (i.e. "normal" society) plaster grins onto their faces and pretend they are ok. Unlike them, we "DPers" do not afford ourselves this persona and instead plunge ourselves head first into that terror and despair, creating all sorts of terrifying scenarios with our incredibly powerful minds.



Beth said:


> If God's that easy then what is there to be scared of?? How could anything like DP matter if you can decide what the world is like according to what you want it to be?


Exactly my point. We all go on and on about how we are obsessing about ourselves and creating things for our minds to stress over. What if we decide that there's nothing to fear and try to stop controlling our minds all the time? Isn't that the key to being able to relax within ourselves? What everybody on this site is asking for when they ask questions like "How can I stop over-analysing my thoughts?"? Perhaps it IS that easy, we just don't want it to be, yet.



Beth said:


> Maybe that's why you have DP, because a part of you is aware of how stupid and animal that is.


Or perhaps I "have" DP because I have been on a crusade to annihilate every part of me that believes that reality is what you make it (i.e. to completely stamp out every shred of emotion, intuition and soul in my being). I've been desperately trying to fit myself into the box of normal society and deny everything that makes me unique. Isn't it possible that none of us are supposed to fit that mould?

Magick (i.e. the act of manifesting your mind into physical reality) happens every day. Right now you have decided to create hell on earth instead of heaven. Its absolutely your right to do this, but most interesting for me is its a fascinating demonstration of just how much creative power we have as humans. Now realise this power and create a world you want to live in instead of a world where you feel completely powerless and un-real.



Beth said:


> Pretty hard to respect human life given the examples we're confronted with everyday. I might be able to like religious people if they were nice but most of them don't even bloody buy fairtrade.


Realise that these examples of human life are operating from exactly the same centres of fear and self-worthlessness that we all are. If you can find some centre in yourself that makes you feel powerful and whole then so can everybody else.

Oh an by the way, that post I made was a quote from a comic called Bill Hicks - check him out if you are interested in very sarcastic, dark but intelligent humour.


----------

