Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

yes, yes Gnome - I am thinking it must be something to do with hymn sheets and people singing from the same one ( or taking their cues from source material)

Hello Charlos, I read over this post previously and wanted to reply to it but was busy following up a different train of thought (a woman) - but now have come back to it.

I do not accept the existence of ‘imperfection’, or that there is from a subjective view-point ‘much left to be desired’ - given the incomprehensible design or rather ‘objective’ of evolution itself, and indeed the environmental adaptability of biological beings and the positive/negative transmutations brought about thereby - as sufficient grounds to refute an ‘intelligent designer’ or a creator/God . . .
Anymore than I accept the existence of suffering and human misery as sufficient grounds amounting to a plausible refutation of ‘God’ [common among Atheist nurses as grounds for their Atheism]. Added to a totality of grounds given as a disproof, I will therefore immediately strike it as a subjective and not objective consideration.
To do so is to claim that if there was no suffering, indeed no imperfection, then there WOULD be sufficient grounds for an intelligent designer. And, indeed, turkeys would fly around ready-roasted.
Sounds human, all too human.
A bit subjective for ‘scientism’ which should be purely objective, surely?
The hand is perfectly evolved to do the tasks it has done and does or is at any rate seemingly ‘designed’ to do. If the human hand was able to move its fingers independently of the accompanying others it would in fact be far less efficient than it is NOW and it seems to me to work in accordance with what it is designed (or WILLED) to do and even BEYOND that to a remarkable degree.
If the fingers were free to move individually, even in a relaxed state we would walk around with our fingers splayed like star-fishes and would in fact have less efficient hands for holding – which is what a hand is used for. Holding. Also, each hand is controlled by the opposing brain hemisphere including the fingers on each hand. They have flexor and extensor muscles and are connected to both the underside and topside of the forearm (a quick squeeze of the wrist will close the hand very suddenly), therefore the relaxed hand is in a constant/fixed state of readiness to clasp or grab hold for clear survival reasons. To restrain a child ASAP from running into the road, in example, or to stop oneself from falling by grabbing a nearby object.
That this is a sufficient refutation of God or intelligent design is . . . hmmm . . . debatable . . . as much as I’d like to see one.

This tiresome (yawn) idea that ‘if there was an intelligent designer’ he/she/it was not a very good designer’ is about as sufficient an aid to a proposed disproof of God (as given or added or subtracted to a sufficient totality of grounds given for OR against God) as a totally subjective naysay in itself.

As for science and scientism being the authority over all other systems of consideration and further explanation or improvement of our human understanding of the mystery and riddle of existence:

‘The intuitive mind is a gift, and the rational mind its faithful servant. The problem is . . . we have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ Albert Einstein (himself an avid reader of philosophy - – notably Spinoza and Schopenhauer whom he read from his youth up).

Hmmm . . . ‘just evolution producing random mutations’ but with an intelligible design brought about BY that evolution . . . ?

Oh, you'd be very surprised by the excellence of my intellect - and its accompanying INSIGHT and offensiveness.

You see that Santa emotion-button dressed in red and white . . . and that reindeer with its glowing red nose . . . ever wondered WHY?

And no, it's not a pagan symbol. Far from it . . . and here is the story . . .

It was upon one fine Christmas morning that I was sitting upon the sofa with a bad bout of bedhead and staring at the presents under the Christmas tree. And I began to wonder why we drag these stupid pine trees into our living rooms and place presents under them. Why?
Was it because these three wise kings brought Christ gifts at his birth and possibly placed them under a tree or on/under something in the stable?
No, something deeper, something . . . DARKER.
And then it jumped out at me. BAM!
The traditional clothes of Santa are red and white and traditionally the presents under the pine tree are wrapped in reds, whites and greens.
And it is so simple: the greatest genius always is!
The present is a mushroom.
You see, the Christmas presents are symbolic of a particular and very specific genus of mushroom that grow under pine trees and live in symbiosis with them (one of the only kinds that do - as most are parasitical).
I then looked at the traditional colours of red and white in which Santa is clothed. They correlate to a specific mushroom known as the Fly Agaric (the Amanita), of a brilliant red and white colouration which grows under pine trees in snowy old Siberia (also in many other heavy woodlands). BUT . . . it goes deeper.
In Siberia, the hunter-gatherer shamans used to go out with hand-sewn sacks and collect these mushrooms, they would then return from the gathering and climb into their abodes which were buried under the snow – dropping down via a doorway which was in effect a chimney stack.
Inside he would then tare the heads off the fresh mushrooms and hang them over the fireplace to speed-up their drying - in effect preparing them for ingestion.
Then, he would consume them and his face would flush red (side-effect) and he would become all merry and jolly and ‘drunk’ and even hallucinate. However, the interesting part is where the reindeer come in to the picture.
The active hallucinogenic metabolites of the mushroom pass through the urine unaltered and the shaman will indeed often urinate into a container and another will drink the urine and enjoy the effects of the mushroom with the toxins removed.
But if alone, the shaman would go out of his abode and urinate into the snow. The reindeer would sniff out the urine, find and eat the snow that had been urinated on, and then it would become drunk and run (fly) off across the Siberian planes completely out of its head.
Now, this practice reached such an extent that shamans in Siberia had to tie up their reindeer and keep them away from their urine to stop them from going wild at the reigns and trying flying off across the planes with their slays.
Reindeer even today in Siberia will seek out the mushroom itself and consume it for its hallucinogenic effect and run around erratically
And the whole mysticism surrounding this practice through shamanic stories and fables came to be what is today the symbols for Christmas. You probably think I am joking, but go and do some collective research and you’ll see.
So, when you kneel in front of your Christmas tree, for the first time in fifty years, watch closely, and remember what Eastbay Ray told you. Because Eastbay Ray SEES things. Because Eastbay Ray sees deeply into life.
Not only is there no such thing as Santa, but the entire celebration is based on the consumption of toxic hallucinogen mushrooms that in a high dose can kill you.
It’s hard being a genius. I always knew Santa didn’t exist . . . and then I discovered something DEEPER.

you should know ray that we eastern girls like a man with warior spirit, strong but also gentle...can you be gentle?

hi trish its me yumie

thanks i know my english is not so good but if i slow donw and take time i can write english quite well. ray is the only one who has even mentioned Taoism. ilike reading your posts by the way, very infomative

Despite the disagreement of others, I am 100% certain that no one knows for sure until they die.

Alrighty, I guess you are familiar with "Occam's razor" ?

It was based on "William of Occam" and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world, like "scientism" surely is.

Alrighty, I guess you are familiar with "Occam's razor" ?

It was based on "William of Occam" and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world, like "scientism" surely is.

"To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why.

'

I think you got it backwards there. I'd think we would be a lot closer to understanding the 'why' than the 'how'. Even if you don't accept the bible as the 'why' The 'how' is a lot more difficult to nail down scientifically.

Merry Christmas

But you still didn't have the Siberian shaman dragging the tre into the house. If the tree don't fit you must aqquit.
While your story may have contributed to the myth of Santa Claus ( yeah, I know he's a myth) it doesn't entirely fit, Western myth is generally not too closely linked to Siberian folklore, so have another cup of reindeer urine and try again.

My response to Ray was just sinking to his level. I apologize for my hypocrisy. I guess the devil made me do it! My words to you Yumie were out of kindness and decency. I am done wasting my time with a bigot and his minions...have a nice hateful and lonely life Ray...Merry Christmas!!

I dont care what they say i love you ray

No, seriously, if you think putting Christmas presents under a pine tree is not symbolic of mushrooms you are mistaken my friend. And if you think the most traditional Christmas colours of white and red are not from that mushroom . . .

THINK AGAIN

That's what makes it so fun. No cheating on the final exam.
But according to some here after we die there is nothing so they do not even have the hope of eventually knowing they were right. They'll spend thier whole life with at least a nagging Gnome of a doubt!

Merry Christmas to All !

I did too Trish!!! it seems ray really is trying to put people on the path of what is true. its amazing but i never thought of it before but it really does make sense and you can see the relations...it seems theres more to everything than fist meets the eye...and there is diffently more to ray

Okay Gnome - bad blood aside - let's go with this: let us look at the why . . .

Why?

HOW is the bible the WHY?