Life Forward Anchor 1

[ChinRey]

4 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

You forgot Lucy, Lizzie, Carol, Pam, Sadie, Rita, Maggie(Mae), Julia, Martha, and a few more I can't remember offhand (I think there's something like 19 total)  lol

I used to think Helter Skelter was a name...

[Klytyna]

20 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

I tried twice in the other thread to bring it back to the values you were talking about but it was too late.

You tried twice to bring the discussion back to something it had never been about in the first place.

"Discussion" wasn't the OP's intent, they will not discuss this with anyone, they preach their socio/religious claptrap and sit back waiting to be martyred.

This was NEVER about 'theologically neutral ethical living", if you want a thread on that topic you'll have to start your own, not hijack these Anchor posts.

These Anchor threads are about HIM telling US, that HE has an important message WE must hear or else WE won't be SAVED by HIM, and HE won't get his better standard of VIP AFTERLIFE.
 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

What's your evidence for this Klytyna? Please base it in the OPs words rather than generalisations or your interpretations. Thank you.

[ChinRey]

7 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

We freely choose to believe in God or not

Do we? If you think everything the bible says makes sense, how can you choose not to believe in the christian God? And conversely, if you don't think so, how can you choose to believe in him?

 

7 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This gets back to my doubts about free will. We get the impression we're free to choose, but is that because we simply aren't able to grasp all the subconscious processes at work in our brains and all the influences that bring us to each new decision point?

Who knows?

Back when I was even younger and in high school, our physics teacher demonstrated brownian motion, claiming that they were random. I had to point out the obvious fallacy of that claim of course and ended up discussing it with a very christian friend. Once we had established that atoms do not move about at random, she concluded that that was the very reason God gave humans Free Will: to add a random factor to an otherwise completely predictable universe. I do tend to agree with you Madelaine, but I can't actually prove that my friend was wrong and I'd rather not use Occam's razor to settle the question.

[ChinRey]

8 hours ago, JoeDex said:

Anchor 2 

There is a God.

Prove it!

[Pixieplumb Flanagan]

7 hours ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

Juliet Foxtrot Charlie.

For the love of god please tell me you are not really going to start a thread for these ....

And with that in mind, JoeDex can Foxtrot Oscar

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

32 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

 I don't know how they'd react to a theologically-neutral thread on living ethically and with regards to others. Might it stand a chance?

IMO, there isn't such a thing like "theologically-neutral". Either one believes in an imaginary character a certain way, disregarding all the other ways of believing in the same imaginary character, or one does not believe in it. I realized that back then in the early '90s, when I was a "seeker" for something to believe in after the system I believed in crumbled down: While all religions had the same imaginary Sky-Daddy, each of them called their way of believing the only "true" way, and disregarded all other ways of following this myth as "wrong". And NONE of them followed the myth book(s) they claimed to believe in to 100%, they all only cherry-picked and interpreted them for their own purposes.

So, based on my experience with (organized) religions, I do think that living ethically does not require a fairy-tale book about an imaginary Sky-Daddy to tell you what's right or wrong. All it requires is "Don't be an *****".

In my opinion, instead of thumbing the Bible, you could quite as well pick quotes from "Harry Potter", Lord of the Rings", or any other Fantasy book in order to preach your particular interpretation of ethics. It would have the same amount of "truth" in it. I even think that if you're doing good things only in order to get into "Heaven" or to have a better "afterlife", you're not really acting ethically. Living ethically in my opinion means helping others simply because they're humans like you, not because some imaginary character "told" you to help them.

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

8 hours ago, JoeDex said:

There is a God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE

Edited July 25, 2017 by eighthdwarf Checchinato
language

[Klytyna]

19 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

What's your evidence for this Klytyna? Please base it in the OPs words rather than generalisations or your interpretations. Thank you.

Years of experience dealing with Self Martyring Preachers, AND with the "Hug an idiot give stupidity a chance" wet-agnostic failed philosopher wannabes who try to welcome them.

But that won't satisfy you so I suggest you go back to the op's TWO previous posts and see exactly how much 'discussion' they engaged in, as compared to a brief and somewhat dismissive "Thank you for your suggestions", typed no doubt with a self satisfied smirk.

You can also wait and see how much 'discussion' they indulge in when 'ending' this thread tomorrow before posting Anchor #3.

We used to call this "Hit and Run Missionary Syndrome" or "Drive-By Preaching".
 

[Phil Deakins]

5 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

Lol, good process, being female and all my name is not Bill, I assure you

Bill is  a shortened version for William, therefore it can also be a shortended version for Willemina or Wilhelmina. But I don't think that Bill was the suggestion. Are you sure that your name isn't Buffalo?

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

So a single line is your entire evidence for your assertions. Interesting.

(This was a reply to Klytyna, which it followed immediately after before the threads were merged.)

Edited July 25, 2017 by Bitsy Buccaneer
thread merger

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

59 minutes ago, eighthdwarf Checchinato said:

IMO, there isn't such a thing like "theologically-neutral".

So you do think it's possible to live ethically without religion but you don't think it's possible to talk about it without reference to 'sky daddies'? Will you kindly clarify this for me?

I wasn't suggesting that participants be theologically neutral, just that we talk about values and ethics without getting bogged down in assertions of theological positions. Did you miss the difference or do you think it's not possible?

[Klytyna]

18 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

So you do think it's possible to live ethically without religion but you don't think it's possible to talk about it without reference to 'sky daddies'? Will you kindly clarify this for me?

It doesn't NEED clarifying... Abject worship of an imaginary Sky-Daddy is not a requirement for not being an arrogant inconsiderate dick to your neighbours. I understand that pseudo intellectual philosopher wannabes might have trouble with that concept, but, who give a rats arse what they think. If they want to waste their day pondering the pointless, let them get on with it in private.

20 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

I wasn't suggesting that participants be theologically neutral, just that we talk about values and ethics without getting bogged down in assertions of theological positions

So you admit you intend to derail a "Drive By Preacher" thread for your own pseudo intellectual discussion, go start your own thread for that crap.
 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Nothing of the kind love. Try again.

[sirhc DeSantis]

Its all a bit 'carrot' so far, waiting for the 'stick' anchor, the one that gets tied to your foot to see if you can float when thrown in the deep end. Thats how these things tend to go isn't it?

[Callum Meriman]

2 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Prove it!

Final Proof of the Non-Existence of god

The Final Proof of the non-Existence of god was proved by a Babel Fish.

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of god. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says god, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says god, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

1 hour ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

So you do think it's possible to live ethically without religion but you don't think it's possible to talk about it without reference to 'sky daddies'? Will you kindly clarify this for me?

Well, instead of "imaginary sky daddy", I could have written "Imaginary father-figure who is supposed to live in the sky". But "sky daddy" was, I think, short enough to still be understood as a concept.

Quote

I wasn't suggesting that participants be theologically neutral, just that we talk about values and ethics without getting bogged down in assertions of theological positions. Did you miss the difference or do you think it's not possible?

Values and ethics don't need any theological positions at all. People had their own values and ethics even before gods and goddesses were invented. So why take such imaginary characters as proxy at all?

Edited July 25, 2017 by eighthdwarf Checchinato

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Are you trolling me eighthdwarf? Or did you really not understand what I was asking?

Quote

I wasn't suggesting that participants be theologically neutral, just that we talk about values and ethics without getting bogged down in assertions of theological positions.

You keep bringing it back to your theological position. I don't take any characters as proxy, imaginary or not. But that seems to be all you're willing to talk about here. Is there any way forward in this conversation?

[Cindy Evanier]

9 hours ago, Jerilynn Lemon said:

1) Michelle ($$) ?

you hit it first try

but coming from Liverpool it could have been a lot worse

 

[Klytyna]

16 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

You keep bringing it back to your theological position. I don't take any characters as proxy, imaginary or not. But that seems to be all you're willing to talk about here. Is there any way forward in this conversation?

No. 

This is because you persist in adopting a clueless pseudo intellectual position that ignores reality.

Here is the reality.

Clueless pseudo-intellectual agnostic starts 'theologically neutral ethical debate'

Theists state failure to worship and obey their Sky Daddy makes you automatically un-ethical, and deserve to be jailed as a criminal.

Atheists refute the claim and point out the un-ethical behavior inherent in virtually all Sky Daddy Cults.

Pseudo-intellectual agnostic asks why we can't all be friends and give each other hugs .

Theists accuse agnostic of being part of the Atheist Conspiracy of Anti-Sky-Daddy Evil

Atheists resent the implied insult in any association with pseudo-intellectual agnostics.

Open warfare commences.

Moderators close discussion with tear gas and riot police.

/me rolls eyes in disgust.
 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

15 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I think what we need to feel valued shifts over time. In the earliest years what we need to feel valued focuses mostly on our individual needs, but it appears (according to growth psychology) that our self-esteem shifts more to what we contribute to society (if our development goes well).
In other words, to what we give as opposed to only what we take. These seem to be the happiest people with a sense of purpose -- those who are able to achieve this.

That's interesting, Luna. I agree that there are differences in what we each need and it seems to me that recognising those differences (rather than relying on our own as guidance) are important in adding value to others.
What can we do to foster awareness of this in society?

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Hugs Klytyna. You're priceless.

[Skell Dagger]

3 hours ago, Klytyna said:

I suggest you go back to the op's TWO previous posts and see exactly how much 'discussion' they engaged in, as compared to a brief and somewhat dismissive "Thank you for your suggestions", typed no doubt with a self satisfied smirk.

I'm glad you brought this (coloured red by me) part to my attention. Let us consider the facts:

• OP makes a cryptic post (80 words) about living with 'value'. Responds a few times - mostly with bland "thank you for your thoughts" - but eventually mentions that god is a part of this living with purpose. OP also asserts that "As far as knowing if many in SL needing guidance one need only read the forums, or spend sometime at an infohub to see the need." This kick-starts some reactions. OP continues to respond with nothing of substance, except for "thank you for your thoughts".
• OP has created a group, asks people to join it, but has accidentally made sure they can't do so.
• When someone points out the group is un-joinable, the OP thanks them, says they'll fix that.
• OP then decides not to open the group after all, as they don't want to appear to be angling for new members.
• OP then creates another new post (159 words, god mentioned twice) telling everyone they are a child of god, and that "a violent explosion results normally in vitriol from the non- believer", then sits back. Thread goes as predictably as it would in most internet forums: different personalities of varying forcefulness debating with varying degrees of politeness and memes. OP responds just once, then 'closes' the thread with "Thank you all for these comments, thoughts and replies."
• OP then creates another new post (149 words, god mentioned six times) telling everyone that god does exist, mentions in passing that there will be at least six of these posts, then sits back. Thread goes as predictably as before.

A total of 308 words, spread out over three separate posts. Eight mentions of god - insisting twice that god exists. OP's bland responses are indicative (as Klytyna mentioned in the section of her post that I've quoted, although her conclusion of motive is different from mine) of obvious "stepping back and observing" - something that is done in sociological studies: wind 'em up, watch 'em go, and record the results. Increase the stakes (mention god a lot more) and see if that changes the reaction from one post to the next.

OP, you are either using us as guinea pigs for some school or college survey, or you are a very elaborate troll. It has not escaped my notice that you started posting the day after one other specific person stopped posting. That person had been extremely active in their short time on the forum (182 posts in 16 days) and their incessant, thread-derailing question posts and noncommital 'ok' replies after people had taken the time to give long and detailed replies to them were beginning to make me wonder if they were also an elaborate troll. They have now not posted for four days - the length of time that you've been active here (although I expect them to pop up predictably quickly after this).

If 'anchor no. 3' appears at all in this forum then I will be reporting it as spam. Four posts in as many days on the same subject (one resident's personal 'theory') counts as "aggressive self-promotion", as per the community guidelines.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Skell Dagger

[Phil Deakins]

59 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

Hugs Klytyna. You're priceless.

If you mean that what s/he writes is worth nothing at all, then I agree with you - at least as far as the forum is concerned. I think it's common knowledge here.

Sorry, Dakota. I just had to.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Skell Dagger]

Phil, I hardly ever agree with Klytyna and I often dislike and disagree with the words that she uses to get her viewpoint across, but that remark crosses a line. Sorry, mate, but saying that someone is "worth nothing at all" - those are not the words of a gentleman. I'm actually disappointed to see you use them.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Skell Dagger
Correcting my own somewhat awkward phrasing.