metadigital

I take it sport is just not an option for these weirdos.

Actually that is not a good example... because (although I hate to look like I'm switching sides) previously in the same book they state "Eye for an eye" which does sort of elude to vengeance... Christianity is meant to be built on the New Testament; Old Testament is superseded (hence two commandments, not ten). And "An eye for an eye" was an improvement for the contemporary cultures; until this the standard response was "two eyes for an eye". PS I think you meant "indicate", "evince", "imply", "indicate", or even "foretell". PPS Your "Road to Damascus" conversion is very similar to another philosophy, one of the most famous (in the UK, anyway) proponents of which is Noel Edmonds, who wrote a book about it called Positive Happy; basically you ask the "Cosmos" (or whatever they call their version of godhead) for what you want and you get it ... no need for all the Roman Catholic overhead. " Hate? I hate nothing, currently. I refuse to believe in something without proof, that's all. There is no argument that convinces me that life needs a creator / godhead, so I use Occam's Razor and strip it away from the explanation. The question is also pretty meaningless, so I guess I'm a bit ignostic, as well. Dystheism Apatheist.

A deist, maybe? Other than that...wow. Very deep and at the same time touching. Very true, too. Props to ya. "i believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -Einstein He (the lapsed Roman Catholic father of Ravenskya) certainly wouldn't believe Ravenskya's story. :D Deism seems most appropriate. That's my Dad's take on the world, not mine. But apparently Ben Franklin and a few others thought the same way. It's got a name, I just don't know what it is. The thinking is that God created the world and now he sits back and watches like and experiment, and one day he will be done with it and the end will come. I don't believe it, but my Dad had to suffer through Catholic school where he was beaten by nuns and such, so the fact that he believes in God at all makes me feel a little better. that is deism in a nutshell... the old clockmaker hypothesis.

I'll have to do some research on Hindu culture (and read through all of your post ) before I can make any positive contribution to your second point, which I shall over the next little while. In the meanwhile, for fun, let us discuss atheism. You believe in Brahman, and you claim to be an atheist. Let's put this to logical rigour to establish your universal quantification. Formally we state the problem as below: Hypothesis: Brahman is not a godhead (given⇒roshan). (Corollary: roshan is an atheist.) Antithesis: Brahman is a godhead (less confusing to disprove a positive, than disprove a negative). define Brahman We have two testable deterministic qualities: Immanence Transcendence [*]Compare Brahman and Godhead What are these metaphysical elements? Observation: immanence is a theological concept used to describe the divine.

No. Okay, how about: unread marks seem to be updating on the topic but still pointing to the initial (cached?) post, rather than the latest post.

clickie

Moved to Skeeter's. No more spam or offenders will be punished.

They might also want to educate them (us!) by stealth to be more tolerant to their sentient creations, in some sort of metaphysical rapproachment. :D

I think it's implemented this way to create the effect that those emoticons are bursting out of the web page and I kinda like it ; or is it just a glitch and I need to be back on my medication? I do hope the Christians here answer my question about the metaphor of the vineyard tho... http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?s=...st&p=742673 p.s. Anyone knows where do I find the Post ID for a post? When replying it is in the first pair of [square] brackets as an argument for the quote, the keyword is "Post", as like this reply is to yours: [quote name='julianw' post='743673' date='Feb 1 2007, 06:28 AM'] If you want a hyperlink to a post in a topic (not just the top of a page), that will open the topic at a page starting from that reply, then click on the underlined link to the right of the "Post" label in the top right of the reply. What about those people who don't subscribe to the religion, and who attack the people who do?

You deny God. Ok, fine. What is the source and destination of reincarnation? Please explain to me karma without mentioning a Godhead. Reincarnation is a theological expediency to explain karma, which is again a theological carrot-and-stick to bribe and coerce the society to behave. Pre-empting your answer, let's take Karma: So, like a Jedi believes in The Force, a non-theistic Hindu believes in karma? If you deny God as you assert, then, this force is completely blind and acts in some sort of Newtonian manner, acting on human actions? This is still not what I would accept as atheism. At best t is Weak Atheism, and more properly considered some sort of spiritualism. You are playing fast and loose with semantics, to sneak in spiritualistic conceits like karma and the soul. Pol Pot was a ruthless tyrant who destroyed an entire country without any punishment. Without reincarnation, the concept of karma doesn't work. It fails right there. It's circular logic, requiring reincarnation to work, which relies on the concept of a "soul". I can't wait for you to tell me fromwards whence all these souls are coming and towards hence these souls are going. Atheists don't need fairytales about afterlife to behave responsibly, they behave out of ethical rectitude (or not, as the case may be); they rely on an internal frame of reference (and hopefully a) humanistic outlook. Personally I think that anyone who assimilates into western society can be considered western. For example, African Americans are clearly westerners, and not a part of african civilization at all. But America is different from Europe in the sense that America has assimilated its minority groups while Europe has not. I live in the UK currently, and I have interracted a lot with second and third generation immigrants from different civilizations who do not consider themselves to be British at all. Thats not to say that all immigrants have not assimilated and become parts of western civilization. Century and a half ago poor Indians were being carted off by the British as slaves ("indentured laborers") to countries like South Africa, Malaysia and Guyana. The reason child labour exists in India is due to British exploitation of the country. Ever heard of the Great Famines of Bengal, where huge swathes of population of Eastern India starved to death due to Britishers stealing food? What about money looted from Bengal used to kick start the industrial revolution in the UK? What about the British cutting off the thumbs of all weavers in Bengal in order to put an end to indigenous industry and force Indians to buy expensive British goods? The materialists of the west created the appalling poverty and illiteracy we see in India today and now want to blame this on Hinduism! What a joke!!! I see, it's all the fault of the British. (At least you aren't still claiming that there is a parity of child slavery in the developed countries now. :crazy: ) So if it's all the fault of the eeeevil British, why (60 years after independence) is there still endemic child slavery, despite it being illegal? The reason that (a lot of) blame is laid at the feet of Hinduism is that one of the tenets of the religion is karma: that people's fate is their own reward for past deeds. Hence, it is morally acceptable to exploit whomever can be exploited (the most vulnerable in society) as they have obviously been evil in a past life and can enjoy a better life next time. This ethical expediency is repugnant to me. Poverty is endemic in India. 50% of the population are discriminated against by caste. 50% of the population are discriminated against by gender. (God help Backward Caste females.) Let's do some basic maths, shall we? 1,100 million people - 200 million = 900 million people that are either upper class or below the poverty line. Take a guess how many are in poverty. And it's all the fault of the British why the literacy rate of women is STILL LESS THAN 50%, I suppose, too. :crazy: The UN recently announced that educating women is the best and fastest way for a society to rise out of poverty. Your hare-brained nonsensical (false-) reasoning is merely you trying to justify the misogynist status quo. (This is why the first tactic of a repressive regime is to take away the rights of women, to bribe the men in the society with free slaves.) Get over it. You are wrong. So you can't be racist because you aren't white, is that it? Only white people are racist, eh? Ever heard of Darfur? Your racism is breathtaking: the sad thing is you aren't even aware of it, it's so entrenched. Perhaps the developed nations wouldn't need to manage such large immigration populations if the countries from whence they emigrate fixed their societies, rather than fester in their own waste. The only long-term fix for immigration is root out the causes in the developing world. (And yes I am aware that the developed world owes a debt to the rest of the world; that must factor into the solution for it to work.) Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either the Western society is infertile due to (philosophical) materialism and this includes all the immigrants or your hypothesis is wrong. Getting back to the point you keep ignoring because it doesn't fit into your simplistic philosophy, the infant mortality rate in India is 5%, TEN TIMES the rate in developed countries, and this must have a significant impact on the fertility rate. If one in twenty children die before their first birthday, couples are bound to have extra children. And this doesn't count the higher mortality over the entire lifespan of a person: life expectancy at birth is more than FIFTEEN YEARS less in India. Any idea how many people have to die young to affect an average by that much? (That's a rhetorical question, I doubt you have any grasp of mathematics, let alone a working knowledge of statistics.) As the developed countries have developed better health, their fertility rate has necessarily dropped. Further, people in the developed world are actively told that the largest problem the world faces is over-population. Early Victorians consciously choose to not have children specifically for this reason. I suggest (one last time) that you don't keep on about "hordes of immigrants swarming into and overrunning the developed world". Any further comments I will edit out. And you will earn a formal warning. Stick to karma and the other tenets of the Hindu religion, rather than your misguided and extremely offensive social commentary.

I reject materialistic philosophies because they cannot provide cvilizations with the strength needed to survive and expand. A great example is the west - birth rates are plummeting, fertility is declining, women are having children at continously later years. Chances are, within a few generations, what we know of as western civilization will cease to exist as immigrants from other civilizations overrun Europe and America. Religions like Hinduism unite people under common values, unite and build families, and through various customs/rituals/celebrations creates a cohesive and organic society. Whoa....since when is athiesm equated with materialism? Atheism and materialism are clearly distinct. Thats exactly the point I am trying to make here. I am an atheist but not a materialist since I accept Hindu metaphysics. Here is the definition of materialism in philosophical usage: MATERIALISM 1. philosophy: theory of the physical: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions Microsoft

Here is the definition of Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities Microsoft

Yeah, he wasn't a very interesting character. Too whiny.

I think the seahorses (in the study) are just short-sighted. "

I would suggest people PM Jorian to help him any further. Jorian, if you can't see a topic that has been stuck to the top of the forum, then no-one can help you.

Nice widescreen!

Mine are refreshing (I don't go back) but they sometimes go to the last unread (before the current one) in a hot topic. I've had this on other boards, but never here, before.

Excerrent.

I have looked for a setting for this Diamond - and cannot seem to find one! I will add it to the 'to do' list, as I too would like this When I click on "Edit" I get a drop-down list with "Full" and "Quick" ... isn't that quick enough?

Thanks, but I stopped drinking pop (as it's called in Ohio, for some strange reason) a while ago. I still have a Diet Pepsi every now and then, but that can't be too bad for me, right? It's gonna be much harder to stop drinking beer. Ahh well... beer is a killer. Whats your favourite? Here is a list of some beers and their caloric content. http://www.beer100.com/beercalories.htm Actually, beer can help to manage a diet. (Apple juice has more calories than beer; the problem is people don't usually drink twenty pints of apple juice in a sitting ... ) Just have one beer two or three times a week as a reward. Lots of water helps, too, as it can speed up the transit time for food through the alimentary canal. (Seriously!) Also, a lot of the "rapid" weight lost is just ambient water in the body (and so isn't really weight lost).

Trust me, I dont want to see any civilizations "overrun". I believe in peace, coexistence, global diversity and the rest of that stuff. But the truth must be told and it sure looks to me like western countries are being overrun by immigrants. I dont agree that the reason women in western countries are having less children is because of health and education. Its because of hedonistic materialism which is caused by a spiritual vacuum. People in these countries no longer search for lasting happiness, they just want quick thrills, material posessions and sensual pleasure. Also, if other western countries are like the UK, it is probably almost financially impossible for a huge portion of the population to afford children. The costs of food, transportation, rent, tax etc take up a huge portion of a low salary. If you want children, you might have to llive a life of no savings (and thus no long term progress in life), vacations etc. Your supposititious suppositions are completely erroneous and incredible offensive. The UK has the most and youngest parents in Europe. The UK government subsidizes the upbringing of children, with free education and child support benefits. In fact, it is quite possible to be a "professional mother" as benefits are larger for more children. Check your facts instead of spreading hate.

Both of you are confusing materialism with atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God - atheism has nothing to do with karma and reincarnation. Buddhism, Jainism, Vedantic Hinduism and Sankhyatic Hinduism are all atheist religions which accept karma, reincarnation and some variation of liberation. No, you are confusing non-theism with atheism. As an atheist, I don't believe in anything I can't prove. (Please explain the fate of Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge with respect to this karma fairytale.) Your touchy-feely desire for superstitious nonsense is polluting the concept of atheism. You should just stick to calling it non-theism, just like Buddhism. After all, why have a specific term for religions-without-a-god if you don't use it? What happened to keeping threads on topic? Arent threads normally locked for drifting off topic? If you want to continue the discussion here then you are very welcome to refute my point about western civilization being on the decline. You used your poor grasp of anthropology and politics as a lame excuse to validate your faith, so I debunked it. (NB I suggest you don't tell me about how to moderate a topic, or I will close it.) India has a middle class of 200 million people who are healthy and educated, but they arent forgoing children. The idea that westerners dont have children because they are healthy and educated is a fallacy created by materialists and leftists to make it seem like not having children is normal and natural, when it is an abnormal phenomenon caused by hedonistic materialism. Nowadays the same leftists are promoting abortion and other such "adharmic" activities in India as well. I dont think there could be anything possibly offensive about the truth. It's offensive that you trot out your bigoted/racist diatribe, whether you call it religious or not. Let me break it down for you, as you seem to be either too brainwashed or too ignorant to understand. Who exactly are these "immigrants from other civilizations"? What makes you think that immigration is not a normal part of the lifecycle of any civilization? You sound like Cicero angrily complaining that Caesar was allowing the "barbarian" Gauls into the Roman Senate. The difference is that over 2000 years later that sort of attitude is regarded, rightly, as bigoted. I suppose you would keep all immigrants from "inter-breeding", too. Here's an experiment for you: walk down Oxford Street in London and take the "average" person. Guess what? That person will almost certainly NOT be white. What's your next conclusion is that the "materialism" is contagious and all those immigrants have caught this "low fertility" consumerism? The argument is not only bigoted but completely fallacious. (Just look at the infant mortality and fertility statistics I have quoted below.) So, let's look at the political ramifications of Hinduism ("80.5% of Indians report themselves as Hindus"), i.e. Indian civilization, shall we? First and foremost I find the Indian (sorry, Hindu) caste system an anathema to human civilization. Even Gandhi (who was committed to the cause of improving the fate of untouchables, referring to them as Harijans, people of Krishna), couldn't solve that one. Nice little side-effect of Hinduism, leaving people to their fate as — obviously — they have a karmic debt to repay. Great religious value, that, the absence of charity for the poor. Secondly, you should try to understand the significance of the emancipation of women, as you obviously have a very poor grasp of the effects on the economy and society. (See the female literacy rates, below.) 200 million middle class in India. Out of 1.1 billion. What about the "Backward Castes"? And how about the endemic child exploitation (as high as 5% of the TOTAL POPULATION of some areas)? You might want to ask why so many people are emigrating from India to the developed countries, rather to stay and try to make a living at home, considering the incredible 8% economic growth, too. Perhaps Hinduism is not quite the saviour of the human race, as you seem to paint it. Here's some facts for you to contemplate as you spout your ignorant politics:

That was a useful device to explore the relationship of the UK with their Queen, and how it has changed from the time of her coronation to her Golden Jubilee. Diana's death was a critical and significant event in the British zeitgeist (much as Watergate was for the USA, for example), and is therefore an important touchstone for the (British) audience. It also serves to help compare and contrast the Queen (who has always enjoyed enormous popularity) and Diana (who is one of the only people to ever gain more popularity, if only briefly). I just saw Venus. The film was excellent. The acting superb: Peter O'Toole (I thought he was dead!), Leslie Phillips, Richard Griffiths and Vanessa Redgrave are all in top form, emoting with an economy of words (Redgrave is on screen for seconds and is superlative). The writing and direction are perfect, too. I was laughing out loud for the first half of the film and I was completely entranced with the fate of the characters. I particularly like the way that mature life takes place at a vastly slower pace than that of the young, as people age and (hopefully) gain wisdom they act like chess masters as each action contains a wealth of context, so manuœuvres (for all contributors) can and do require a depth of thought instead of bursts of speed. The film demonstrates this facet of life eloquently, without even making the audience aware: sublime. It's a character-based film, though, so if you prefer mindless action this won't be of interest.

Atheism means lack of a belief in god. What is unconvincing about my atheism? Hinduism is more of a way of life than a religion. It has very few theological concepts that one needs to accept - just karma, reincarnation, soul, vedas and liberation. If atheism requires anything more than a rejection of god, it could possibly be considered to be more dogmatic than Hinduism is! There isnt any particular Hindu value I consider worthwhile. However, I consider examples of dharmic lives set by characters in Hindu scriptures (such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana) to be worth emulating, in general. Because an atheist doesn't believe in karma, reincarnation, soul, vedas and liberation, obviously. Trust me, I dont want to see any civilizations "overrun". I believe in peace, coexistence, global diversity and the rest of that stuff. But the truth must be told and it sure looks to me like western countries are being overrun by immigrants. I dont agree that the reason women in western countries are having less children is because of health and education. Its because of hedonistic materialism which is caused by a spiritual vacuum. People in these countries no longer search for lasting happiness, they just want quick thrills, material posessions and sensual pleasure. Also, if other western countries are like the UK, it is probably almost financially impossible for a huge portion of the population to afford children. The costs of food, transportation, rent, tax etc take up a huge portion of a low salary. If you want children, you might have to llive a life of no savings (and thus no long term progress in life), vacations etc. Thus, womens fertility in western European countries is well below the replacement rate, even after factoring the much higher birth rates of immigrants. I wish these materialist countries the best of luck with their futures! I dont want to contribute to the problem by being a materialist as well. So I am going to stick to Hinduism. I don't care if you agree or not with the established facts about health and education and empowering women. You seem to be confused about what is offensive about your remarks; it's not the decline of developed nations, it's the "swarming" metaphor. Yes, it is better you don't try to manage politics and anthropology in this topic, as you obviously have very little idea about either.