Life Forward Anchor 1

[Phil Deakins]

@Skell Dagger I know it crosses the line. That's why I put the bit in to Dakota. I honestly felt that I had to write it because Klytyna's post are almost always eminently skippable, not necessarily because of his/her views but because of the way that s/he writes them - incredibly rudely - and it's been just the same in this thread.

I was writing a post to you when your post was posted. I'll continue it now...

I think you're probably right about some of what you wrote. The first 'anchor' post/thread made some good sense. The second didn't come up to the same standard though, and it occured to me that the guy is putting himself forward as a teacher in this forum of his ideas. I genuinely think that his next 'anchor' threads ought to be removed on sight. And it wouldn't hurt to remove the first 2 anchor threads.

The first thread (not an 'anchor' thread) mentioned the word 'cult', and I believe that the purpose is either one of your suggestions or he's trying to start or extend a cult.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Klytyna]

12 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

If you mean that she's 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.

Hahaha...

Goodbye Phil...
 

[Nalytha]

52 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

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.
 

Interesting to note. There are three parties in this situation: 
1. The Theist.
2. The Atheist.
3. The clueless pseudo-intellectual Agnostic 

I don't understand why the third group deserves the extra, demeaning, adjectives. Can't we have a discussion without such qualifiers? 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Nalytha

[Skell Dagger]

22 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Skell Dagger I know it crosses the line. That's why I put the bit in to Dakota. I honestly felt that I had to write it because Klytyna's post are almost always eminently skippable, not necessarily because of his/her views but because of the way that s/he writes them - incredibly rudely - and it's been just the same in this thread.

(Bolding mine.)

37 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

If you mean that she's 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.

(Again, bolding mine.)

There is a difference between stating that the words someone says (or the way in which they say them) are worth nothing at all, and saying that the person saying them is worth nothing at all. That's the reason your post crossed the line.

[Klytyna]

5 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

....

 

Skell... Just let it go. Don't let him use you to derail the thread further
 

[Phil Deakins]

8 minutes ago, Skell Dagger said:

There is a difference between stating that the words someone says (or the way in which they say them) are worth nothing at all, and saying that the person saying them is worth nothing at all. That's the reason your post crossed the line.

Oh alright. I edited it

Although I could have said that s/he's worth nothing at all to this forum. Then it wouldn't have crossed the line, yes?

Edited July 25, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Skell Dagger]

Klytyna has asked me to let it go. Since it concerns her, I'm letting it go.

[Klytyna]

14 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Interesting to note. There are three parties in this situation: 
1. The Theist.
2. The Atheist.
3. The clueless pseudo-intellectual Agnostic 

I don't understand why the third group deserves the extra, demeaning, adjectives. Can't we have a discussion without such qualifiers?

Somebody walks up to you and a group of other bystanders and suggests you all join them in juggling live hand grenades while standing in a minefield.

Do you classify them as a 'smart person' or a 'dumb person' ?

Many clueless pseudo-intellectual agnostics suggest that Theists and Atheists can have 'meaningful discussions about [some topic the two groups violently disagree on]' without bringing theological concerns into it.

Every one of them seriously seems to think they are the first to do this, and that it really could work, and wow aren't they clever for finally solving a problem that dates back to before the dawn of recorded human history...

Every one of them is wrong. We've done this dance many times before and we know exactly how it turns out, you try to tell them it's a dumb idea but nope, they see the world differently.

And the worst part is they actually think that claiming they don't know if they believe in deities or not, makes them somehow intellectually superior to people who openly admit it's a binary problem.

Sky-Daddies - Believe - Don't Believe, Yes - No, On - Off. Binary answer.

The definition of the Greek phrase from which Agnostics take their name is "Don't Know".

I'd say not knowing if you believe or not, is pretty clueless.
 

[Nalytha]

I see where you are coming from. I'm an Atheist married to Agnostic and I've run a local 'Freethinkers' group for four years. I guess I just don't see how any meaningful conversation can take place when you use such terms. Once such terms are used, said Agnostic will immediately tune you out. Your argument has merit, but it's just unnecessarily hidden. 

[Luna Bliss]

I fell asleep seeing anchors

Bitsy in answer to your question in the previous thread, I think meditation helps more than anything I've come across.

[Nalytha]

5 hours 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?

My idea of "living ethically" is to put more good in the world than bad. To give more than I take or at the minimum try to give as much as I take from this world. It's theologically neutral. Anyone can do it. As to what's "good" and "bad," that's left up to interpretation. However, for me, I try not to overanalyze it. Does it harm me or someone emotionally or physically? Many actions have an answer that isn't hard to figure out. 

[Pamela Galli]

7 hours ago, ChinRey said:

14 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?

I am not talking about any particular religion, just that there is no scientific or logical proof that would compel belief in God. Or disbelief, since absence of proof is not proof of absence. 

Everyone is free to choose, whether they think so or not -- if in fact we do have what we call free will at all. People think they are compelled when they have simply chosen. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Pamela Galli

[Nalytha]

@Madelaine McMasters, I just want to say a lot of what you have written resonates with me. I also am skeptical of "free will." So much so that it forces me to sympathise with some folks than many don't think twice about -- addicts, sociopaths, pedophiles, etc. I do think there is a balance. I might wager I believe there is a tad more free will than you do. But I'm not sure if that's just me being over optimistic. I don't believe a pedophile can change their thoughts. I do believe it's within their power to not assault children. I believe it's a crazy type of restraint that perhaps most of us will not understand. So I yeah... I totally went there. I just realized that's probably going to open me up for some negativity. But hopefully you understand what I'm saying. 

I feel like there has to be a religious gene, because I too was a 'problem child' in the church. I asked too many questions and as young as I can remember -- preschool -- I was told "that's just the way it is." To me, it's obvious that I was born a skeptic and it's taken me a long time to realize not everyone is. To me, that supports my opinion that our free will is more limited than most think it is.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, eighthdwarf Checchinato said:

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?

In the "do what ye will but harm none,changing consciousness at will" philosophy you mentioned, one invokes gods and goddesses to change consciousness. The awareness is maintained, however, that these are symbols. I believe that some reify the process however and lose this perspective. In Jungian psychology this mother-father archetype is a powerful one, and whether one projects this on a 'god' or not, it is almost always present in some way in every individual.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Luna Bliss

[Klytyna]

12 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

I see where you are coming from. I'm an Atheist married to Agnostic and I've run a local 'Freethinkers' group for four years. I guess I just don't see how any meaningful conversation can take place when you use such terms. Once such terms are used, said Agnostic will immediately tune you out. Your argument has merit, but it's just unnecessarily hidden.

In another time and place, an agnostic, well meaning I'm sure, started a thread about the idea of Theists and Atheists becoming friends and even intermarrying, and raising kids.

Many of the Atheists who responded said they would consider it, but, their Theist partner would have to agree not to brainwash the kids with Sky-Daddyism, before they were old enough and educated enough to make an informed free choice for themselves..

The Theists said pretty much the same thing except their 'condition' was that the kids get a proper religious education at Junior Sky-Daddyism Class, every week after Ritual Groveling.

At the start of the thread I had stated my opinion that it was a 'bad idea that just wouldn't work in practice' for many of those who tried it. The agnostics of course accused me of being biased and having no evidence for that conclusion, then of course the two sides posted their hard conditions and intent to ignore their partners conditions, and proved me right.

Even after 20 odd pages of statements of intent, and horrific accounts of failed attempts to do exactly as the agnostic had suggested, had clearly shown that the agnostic hadn't given a single moments rational thought to their proposition, they STILL claimed that they were right and all the atheists and theists were wrong and just needed to try harder, and convert to the "Agnostic Religion of Don't Know- Don't Care".

23 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Once such terms are used, said Agnostic will immediately tune you out.

Pseudo-Intellectual Agnostics tuned us all out before the discussion started, that's what they do.

The Intellectual Agnostics know better than to juggle grenades in minefields, they stay at home and write books on philosophy for other Intellectual Agnostics to enjoy. That's why you have to qualify, and make it clear which subset of "don't knowists"you are referring to.  
 

[Ceka Cianci]

I like to keep things simple.

I'm simply the universe experiencing myself from different perspectives..

 

Wrote a song about,goes little somthin like this.

 

[Nalytha]

Having run this local freethinker group, I've seen a lot of interesting families. We have one Atheist married to a Hindu and they have their child attend a Christian school. I guess love really transcends a lot of stuff. I know from talking to them that they temper their child's school teachings with open dialog from both of them at home. I guess some might say this is too confusing for a child, but she seems to be very loved and open minded. She thinks the stories they teach her at school are really "cute". She's six. 

I have no kids, so it's easier to manage a relationship between myself being Atheist and him being Agnostic. Does it get frustrating? Sure. We mostly don't talk about religion. It amazing to outsiders how much an Atheist and an Agnostic can argue. But when we talk, we do try to keep it civil because once we fail at that, we completely lose the other person. 

I get that you are talking about a specific type of person, but it sort of comes off like you are talking about all Agnostics. 

[Paul Hexem]

[Marigold Devin]

14 hours ago, JoeDex said:

Anchor 2 

There is a God. He is everywhere and he loves you.
 

Anchor 2 follows directly from Anchor 1

Something, however you define it, created matter. I call the something God. You may call it something different. I do not profess to know all the names for the creator so I will use what is familiar to me: God. Because you were created and because you have value, you are precious in the eyes of God. God is everywhere. even avowed deniers cannot explain what preceded the big bang. So, something created matter as we know it both light and dark matter. That creator had to have power. Much more power that I could possibly ascertain. 

The concept of God being everywhere takes on more importance in Anchor 6, but for now, know that you are loved by a great power. 

Oh aye, "God" is everywhere ...

Try telling that to the Jehovah's Witness who fell on his a r s e while walking down my steep driveway on an icy winter's day.

That "God" was looking after me that day, for I didn't have to tolerate his brain-washing nonsense.

[Ivanova Shostakovich]

   I stopped by to say hi to the friends I have here. Hi. Now you know, it's your fault I'm in this thread.

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Marigold Devin said:

Oh aye, "God" is everywhere ...

Try telling that to the Jehovah's Witness who fell on his a r s e while walking down my steep driveway on an icy winter's day.

That "God" was looking after me that day, for I didn't have to tolerate his brain-washing nonsense.

They don't go to my fathers house anymore or even anywhere on our road..

He would invite them in and sit them at the table and before he was finished,they were the ones trying to get out of the house..

But before they could get in a word edgewise,he would be on another roll..He loved when they came by.. one time he had them in there for like 3 hours.. hehehehe

 

[Marigold Devin]

3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

They don't go to my fathers house anymore or even anywhere on our road..

He would invite them in and sit them at the table and before he was finished,they were the ones trying to get out of the house..

But before they could get in a word edgewise,he would be on another roll..He loved when they came by.. one time he had them in there for like 3 hours.. hehehehe

 

Hahaha, my mother was like that too - with everyone - but JH's were her specialty.

I had a school friend who was one, another who was a catholic, with a close relative a headteacher of a catholic school,and, like all my school friends, they had strict instructions to take their religion, along with their shoes, off at the door.

[Marigold Devin]

3 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

They don't go to my fathers house anymore or even anywhere on our road..

He would invite them in and sit them at the table and before he was finished,they were the ones trying to get out of the house..

But before they could get in a word edgewise,he would be on another roll..He loved when they came by.. one time he had them in there for like 3 hours.. hehehehe

 

Hahaha, my mother was like that too - with everyone - but JH's were her specialty.

I had a school friend who was one, another who was a catholic, with a close relative a headteacher of a catholic school,and, like all my school friends, they had strict instructions to take their religion, along with their shoes, off at the door.

[Skell Dagger]

The second thread in this 'series' has now been merged by the moderators into this first thread. Hopefully, OP, you will understand that this means - if you come back to post about 'anchor 3' - you should continue posting in this thread instead of starting another new one.

Thank you, mods

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Skell Dagger said:

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) ...

Coincidentally, there was a recent anchor-themed post in the LSL Scripting forum, of all places. In contrast, that topic generated some useful discussion.

I know we're supposed to stick to the topic, but honestly, I can't discern any topic here worth discussing. It might be of more interest to undergrads after the bars close.