Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The POPE      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 marysunshine02
Joined: 10/11/2015
Msg: 176
The POPEPage 8 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
If people took entire quotes IN context or put little """ marks around the whole statement instead of little bits, they wouldn't sound so dumb either :))) By the way, "learnt" is not a word.:)))

None of us agrees with each other all the time. Sometimes I agree with her, it's rare, but sometimes. My point is - if you've been here and posting awhile you should learn how to quote properly as a courtesy to your reader. And no, I don't take someone or their opinions seriously when I can't determine if what they are saying are their thoughts or something they are quoting from an article or a book or a Google search.
 BBEisBack
Joined: 9/16/2015
Msg: 177
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 5:18:01 PM

By the way, "learnt" is not a word.:)))


Actually it is a Word, just not used as commonly on this side of the Pond.
Though, it does sound ODD to us, over here.....

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/learnt-vs-learned

‘Learnt’ or ‘learned’?

These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. Both are acceptable, but learned is often used in both British English and American English, while learnt is much more common in British English than in American English.

We learned the news at about three o'clock.
They learnt the train times by heart.

There are a number of other verbs which follow the same pattern in forming the past tense and past participle:

I burned/burnt the toast by mistake.
He dreamed/dreamt about his holiday.
Luke kneeled/knelt down to find his contact lens.
Tanya spoiled/spoilt her dinner.
She spelled/spelt her surname an unusual way.

Leap, lean, spill, and others are also verbs of this type. They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.

Learned (but not learnt) is also an adjective, pronounced as two syllables (ˈlərn|əd) rather than the one syllable verb (ləːnt or ləːnd). The adjective, when said of a person, means 'having acquired much knowledge through study'. It can also be used of objects, meaning 'showing, requiring, or characterized by learning; scholarly'.

She is a learned and respected teacher.
I read the report in an extremely learned journal.

 congupnaroad
Joined: 7/22/2015
Msg: 178
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 5:54:13 PM

Whereas religions think that atheists, "heretics", and "apostates" should disappear, and that it is morally permissible (if not mandatory) to use imprisonment, torture, executions, stonings, floggings, crucifictions, beheadings, conquests and mass genocide to destroy any non-believers in their faith.
I know which I prefer


Nothing like a false broad generalisation is there?



Gosh Dee, that is an "interesting analysis"
The "overwhelming majority" eh.? And "in most cases". It all sounds very well-researched.
Wow.
In my country, I think that about 40% of people now identify as "no religion", though they might not all be actual atheists.
That's about 24 million people here.
And if (as you so knowledgeably claim) The "overwhelming majority" have suffered abuse and/or "trauma" at the hands of religions.
That's an awful lot of abuse.
And you say that "in most cases they were raised as fundamentalists."???
So more than 12.5 million people here were raised as fundamentalists?
It sounds like religion is even more of a malign influence, than even I previously imagined


No one said ALL atheists did they?



It usually goes something like:
Atheist: "How do you know that "god" exists?"
Believer: "Because it says so, right there in the bible"
Atheist: "And why do you believe the bible?"
Believer: "Because the bible is the word of god"
And repeat


And not all Christians believe the bible is the word of God.



And the real reason why you don't argue, is because it's (atheist) facts against (theist) fictions.
Just like your above, ridiculous, unattributed alleged "statistics" are.
A fiction.
An entirely ''Ad hominem fallacy" fiction, made-up by some bloke, somewhere on the internet, who's clearly losing an argument


Which atheist facts?



You, as a"christian" believer/defender, also believe that all other religions are "wrong".
Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Moonies, Scientologists, Cargo Cults, and all the rest.
They all believe that yours is "wrong" too. Just like I do.
I believe they're all wrong


Why do some atheists tell Christians what they believe? How do they possibly know what every Christian believes? Buddhists are essentially atheists. Why do you think they are wrong?


The only difference between your beliefs, and mine, is that I think that just one more religion is wrong, than you do.
With over 4,000 different religions,
I'd say that was pretty close


4,000 religions? Where did you pull that figure from? Have you independently verified that each of them is wrong? How long did that take you?


I don't need to speculate on why you think those things, or on what sort of a person you are, or even on what sort of a person, I think you are, or your background etc..
It's all irrelevant.
I just answer what you post, and address only that



You don't address anything, all you do is repeat ad nauseum the same boring arguments that have been around for Centuries!
 marysunshine02
Joined: 10/11/2015
Msg: 179
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 6:21:40 PM
Thanks Blueyeyes. I'm still not going to use "leant" or "spelt" and Canada is pronounced Canada with an "a" and not Canada with an "er".

Congu...I thought Dee's comments regarding atheists suffering abuse was b.s. too. If we are going to make shyt up and generalize without backup, sources or citing studies, we could easily say anything we want about the god freaks too...all of them, all 4,000 religions. As for Jo Van, at least he has an opinion besides "nope, you're wrong". I hate it when someone makes you think, don't you?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 180
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 7:06:35 PM
@message 200


Did I say "normally functioning brain"..?
No.
What I said was "even when the brain is running 'normally', and being supplied with blood, nutrients, and oxygen."


brain "running normally" and "normally functioning brain" are nearly interchangeable terms (even adjusting for varying contexts). In fact the term "running normally" is not a term used in scientific treatises; because of vague connotation. You may hear that term more in relation to how "normal" YOUR CAR is working, rather than the human mind!


A lack of oxygen or blood flow will cause "brain dysfunction (or malfunction) that can result in hallucinations."
So where's the "world of difference"?


the difference is that you can lose consciousness in a split-second (depending on the causative event, such as a well placed bullet), but that doesn't mean that your brain was in a state of malfunction up to that moment!


Our senses don't perform any "misperceptions",


Our senses deceive us all the time; such as what you may experience in a typical 'mirage' in a desert from incorrect data received by the brain. Illusionists pride themselves on 'fooling' our senses all the time, so that we fail to acknowledge all that may be going on before a conclusion is drawn.


"However, hallucinations are not only associated with illness but can also occur in healthy individuals."

(My emphasis)
Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience.
On the neurobiology of hallucinations.


The above quoted statement is NOT what the article (in the link you put up) was alluding to!

A) The "healthy individuals (adolescents)" being referred to was a sampling of 1267 kids aged 13--17 from varied backgrounds (single family household vs, dual parent household and further stratified by those engage in drug use and those who were not. This was referenced from a small Australian study as shown below.

If you care to look at it, The link is:
www.ncbi,nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046858

The impetus behind this abstract report is to elucidate those (by the symptoms they displayed) who might be at risk of developing schizophrenia later in life. Thus the participants were regarded as 'healthy' because they did not have a prior diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder going in; and not because they were necessarily "normal" (or were expected to remain that way).

B) The issue of widowed spouses who experienced (pseudo) hallucinations is something that was derived under a state of emotional duress (ie; stress from the loss); which can certainly produce chemical perturbations leading to such hallucinations (if they are indeed true hallucinations) that would not happen under 'normal' circumstances.

C) the same applies to "hypnotically" induced hallucinations; the key word is induced (in an individual who would not otherwise experience them).

In short, what you've failed to see here is that this dissertation was published not to prove that hallucinations happen in "normal" pple; but rather to try to shed light on the neuro-pathology of this condition as it relates to non-schizophrenics by juxtaposing it to what they've uncovered in the physio-anatomy of schizophrenics. And as the author states, that there is no way to know if what the "healthy" persons experienced are actually true hallucinations or not!


There's no need to be rude!!


Then do away with your gibberish; and take the time to better understand the sources that you draw from.
 BBEisBack
Joined: 9/16/2015
Msg: 181
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 7:10:55 PM

Thanks Blueyeyes. I'm still not going to use "leant"


Neither am I, as I said, it just Sounds Odd to Us, over here... But a couple of others like Learnt, I could go Either Way...

burned/burnt...... "I Burned the Toast" or "She served Burnt Toast".

Same with... kneeled/knelt... I think I would use Kneeled for myself, but might say Knelt for another's action....
"I Kneeled Down", "He/She/They, Knelt Down".

As for the Choice of Religious Affiliation in a Profile on POF... I don't think I'm the only one, who picked a choice as Related to How I was raised, not My current Belief. If it could be Left Blank, I would Do that....
 Aprilikeswhiteroses
Joined: 2/28/2015
Msg: 182
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 7:26:14 PM

Maybe you could just learn how to quote other posters properly, cite your sources when "quoting" from Google searches like any normal smart person would do. We don't know if your dumb comments are your dumb comments, someone else's' dumb comments or your intelligent comments (rare) or someone else's ntelligent comments (rare). You've been here long enough to learn how to use the quote feature.


This is an example of a "vicious ad hominem attacks"


I thought Dee's comments regarding atheists suffering abuse was b.s. too.


By the way in which you talk and treats others, you really show signs of abuse......but not exactly by a religious...


As for Jo Van, at least he has an opinion besides "nope, you're wrong". I hate it when someone makes you think, don't you?


I can't believe this,
how you dare to criticize someone's opinion, when yourself don't know how to say/write anything intelligent about the topic.?

 marysunshine02
Joined: 10/11/2015
Msg: 183
The POPE
Posted: 10/19/2015 7:45:49 PM
^^^ Have you read your OWN posts? Did you take a whack on the head or two?

If she, Dee, was quoting a source for her "findings" she should cite the source. I didn't see any reference to a study or a doctoral thesis or even a Google reference so I'm gathering she just made up her comments.

And Jo Van is commenting, adding to the topic, bringing up thoughts, ideas, opinions and citing some sources when he has to. I may not agree with ALL of what he says bit at least he is adding to the discussion. I actually wish the topic would swing back to the wealth of the church, the abuse scandals and how the last few Popes have ignored it and swept it under the rug. The wealth of the Catholic Church sickens me as does the hypocrisy. It makes me wonder...WWJD. But I'm an atheist and IMO, Jesus wouldn't be too happy right now.

And no, I've never been abused...I'm not catholic.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 184
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 2:27:09 AM
Like wow man lol the forum intellectuals are throwing a hissy fit because some folk do not use the quote system and use words that are actual
words but because THEY do not use or know them then said word must not exist. Have they learnt nothing? Ooops unknown word used.

Yous* are highly amusing as yous gang up on the dissenters. I do everyone the courtesy of reading their posts. I am not an elitist snob. But very
very amusing when the intellectual gang go on the rampage.

Yous catholic church haters. If you ever visit my homeland be sure to visit planet glasgow and go watch rangers play at castle greyskull. They will
be right up your street. Anti catholic chants from when you arrive until you leave. Mind get your cheap labour** gardner to carry your pitchfork.

Everyone has a point. Whether you agree or not at least folk are taking part. I realise that the intellectual forumites would rather us thick dissenters
would piss off and leave yous to massage your own egos.

Keep on posting folks.

Forum rules state all posts must be in english. And as there are MANY variations of english then suck it up. Cue i don't read your posts
hissyness. Lol

yous*

(dialectal, chiefly Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, New Jersey, Liverpudlian, Ireland, Scotland) You (plural). [from 19th c.]
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/yous

**labour
Oooo labour is not spelt with a u. Howl sniff

Yes it is. Times yous learnt your english.
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 185
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 3:11:06 AM
Ya know......we got a lot of smart people in this thread....so I'm wondering what y'all think of the Pam Reynolds NDE.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4EztGUHnbs

I'm liking theory of quantum shenanigans occurring in the microtubules of neurons set forth by Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose.

But I have difficulty reading scientific journals and what not so....what's your explanation of her experience?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 186
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 3:29:42 AM

Gosh Dee, that is an "interesting analysis"


Well, actually it isn't an analysis at all. It's a blogger expressing his views:


This leads me to make several empirically testable claims about the psychology of militant atheism.
https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/tag/belief/

A blogger making "claims" is not an analysis, scientific or otherwise. And his "empirically testable" based claim was formed by reading a paper written by a psychologist who attended a study group, PhACT, and, without interviewing all the participants of the study group, formed an opinion that they were all abused.

Both theists and atheists have personal beliefs. Neither the existence of God or the non-existence of God can be proved. So, all one has to go on is their personal beliefs. But, using a blog opinion that was based on anecdotal "data", and thinking that is is "fact", "scientific", or based on "statistical analysis" is so wrong it is beyond belief. Or perhaps this poster thinks we're all as stupid as she appears?


Pam Reynolds NDE


Interesting. Does it prove or disprove Divinity? Does it support Christianity, Hindu, Judaism, or Muslim faiths? Or any other faith?


what's your explanation of her experience?


I have no explanation of her experience. I only have my personal "beliefs."
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 187
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 3:54:38 AM
Imo, Mr. Irish.....it doesn't prove or disprove Divinity.

Only that....maybe....the parameters we set for "clinically dead" may need some evaluation and further research and investigation is warranted.

But that's just what I believe. :)
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 188
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 12:05:31 PM

Well, actually, you don't know what I personally believe or not.

No, I don't, and that's why I said "believer/defender".

I did google it, though as others have agreed, it would be much easier, and less confusing, if we could discern what you write/think, from what you're quoting (Another person's writing/thoughts).

At best it's dishonest plagiarism, at worst, it may be copyright infringement.
If we still had mod's, it would have been deleted, for the latter reason.

As far as I can tell, it most likely came from here:
https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-link-between-religious-fundamentalism-and-militant-atheism/
Though I still can't be sure, as it's been re-quoted many times, elsewhere.

It's a blog/discussion by a so-called "progressive-christian", who dislikes/disagrees with both "christian fundies" and atheists, and tries to equate the two diametrically-opposed factions, as the same.
For no other reason (that I could see) than both disagree with him, and therefore they're both just as bad. (In his view)

The discussion then moves on, to homosexuality, and his ("progressive") views, Vs. the church's "official" stance.
Interestingly, he describes/justifies the "smashing of babies against rocks", which is "sung" about, in "Psalms",( as "punishment" for the "sins" of the parents, in "Babylon", (or maybe "Sodom"?), as "collateral damage".
How charming. How "progressive".
But I digress.

The "most cases", and "overwhelming majority" in his sweeping generalisations, about what he calls "antitheists (or New Atheist, militant atheist, atheistic fundamentalist…)" is based purely on some examples of "former fundies" of his experience, who are now ardently atheist.
There were no "studies".
He's simply pulled that ass- ertion from whence he mostly speaks.

Now, before someone (who's been following this discussion,) accuses me of doing the same thing, regarding my anecdotes about all the religious people who've knocked on my door, having been "previously damaged", I made it clear that it was anecdotal, and not representative of ALL or even "most" believers, and further, I have stressed (many times) that we're ALL damaged.

It seems an odd form of "debate", to begin by claiming that "the overwhelming majority" of your opponents are the "victims of abuse", and "most" were raised as "fundies".
It's a classic example of "ad hominem fallacy". It attacks (/criticises) only the person, rather than their arguments.

For him to then whine about the " the hostile and disrespectful rhetoric of a militant atheist" being "inversely proportional to the intellectual strength of his or her arguments." is laughable,
when the "intellectual strength" of his is demonstrated "right off the bat" with a logical fallacy.

And Dee's quoting of it, just adds further weight and justification to the atheist case.
If it were true, it would mean that religions have abused on an epic scale. (Which they might have done)
Who's side is she on anyway?


Reading (some of) that 'blog' has been useful to me though.
It's reminded me that atheists in the USA are still something of an "oppressed" minority, and that religion still has the power and majority.
And I didn't know that there were still actually states where it's perfectly legal to sack someone, or evict someone, for just being gay, and even a few where it's still legal to refuse to provide services to gay people. (apparently?)

But reading between the lines, this "progressive christian" agrees with me, on many things.
He feels that the violent "fundamentalism" of the "old testament" is harmful to (any) religion's "image".
So take it out, I say. That's an obvious and easy solution. -And I'd have less to criticise!

I'd have no problems with religions being some sort of benign 'club', where people could believe whatever they like. (However 'silly' IMO)
I certainly have no problems with people doing 'good'. (As long as they don't make it "conditional" on belief, as they still often do. That's just extortion and abusing another person's misfortune for your own ends)
People can believe whatever they like, as long as they don't try and impose their silly "rules" on other people, who don't share their beliefs.

But I don't think it should ever be "taught" in schools, or to anyone under the age of consent.
It still is, in my country.
We have a "head of state", who is also the "head of the state religion".
We have "state" religious schools, now growing, because of 'conservative" political dogma, under the guise of "academies", many of the newest ones being "muslim".
"Christian" state schools here, must have at least one "act of worship" per day, by law.
So in that sense,( to answer one of Vl's points about it being purely voluntary in the US) belief is "forced" on children here, it's the default position.
I don't think religions should ever be "imposing" their beliefs from such a position of power.

In the case of the "pope", well, he has his very own "state".
I agree with Mary, organisations which are "charities", and claim to be "helping the poor", definitely shouldn't have billions, in their own banks.

I actually wish the topic would swing back to the wealth of the church, the abuse scandals and how the last few Popes have ignored it and swept it under the rug. The wealth of the Catholic Church sickens me as does the hypocrisy. It makes me wonder...WWJD. But I'm an atheist and IMO, Jesus wouldn't be too happy right now.

And no, I've never been abused...I'm not catholic.


Me neither, though I am supposed to be a "catholic", there was certainly no "fundamentalism" in my upbringing.

I don't think "jesus" was "magic" at all, nor "the son of god".
I've explained why I don't believe in primitive superstitions and deities. It's all about context.

IMO., if "jesus" really existed at all (There are some who believe he's like "Robin Hood", or "King Arthur", entirely mythological, but an 'idealised' version, based on some conglomeration of earlier figures)

I think he was just an early 'socialist'.

I think we all know what he'd make of the "vatican's" guilded palaces.
He told his followers to give all their belongings to the poor.

It's ironic that "believers", (like the above 'blogger'), somehow describe atheists as "materialists".
When it's actually the exact opposite; it's the 'conservative', right-wing, and the 'most-materialist' capitalists who now argue hardest, to preserve these archaic "christian" beliefs. Especially in the USA.

And that hasn't been my experience either, most atheists I know, (in the UK) are actually left-wing, anti-capitalist types.
IE -NON-Materialist. (So I don't know where they get that idea.)

The words 'catholic' and 'conservative' (both with small ''c's) have become almost synonymous,
eg" he has catholic tastes." or " he has conservative tastes."
Both describe someone with old-fashioned tastes.

So for me, the phrase "progressive christian" is a total 'oxymoron'. (like "military intelligence" is. )
How can you ever be "progressive", when you're only ever looking backwards, to the beliefs of the past?
It's like saying "Progressive Amish", or "progressive Druid".


"Drinks" was exactly right about the bible, IMO., they should rip it up, and start again, rather than tinkering around the edges.
It's full of violent, hateful, tribal, racist, homophobic, patriarchal, and misogynist shit.
These are old-fashioned views and beliefs, and they have no place in modern (notionally) egalitarian societies.
We've moved on, we know more than they did, back then.
JMO

April:

This is an example of a "vicious ad hominem attacks"

No, it really wasn't.
It was an "attack" on the contents (or lack of ) and style of a post.
But this is:

By the way in which you talk and treats others, you really show signs of abuse.....

And this:

how you dare to criticize someone's opinion, when yourself don't know how to say/write anything intelligent about the topic.?

(My bold)
You're attacking the posters there, not the post.
See the difference?
hth

KJ:
Years ago I read a book called "The Quantum Self", by Danah Zohar (I think?), it speculated about the workings of the human brain, and "self" and "consciousness", and was very interesting. Check it out.
Yule:
Whatever.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 189
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 12:46:24 PM
Your posts prove as true what I quoted. Well, you serve as one example.

So, there is really nothing to add, in that respect.

Everyone is free to believe or not believe whatever he, she , whatever wants. The hostility is what renders whatever belief (christianity, atheism, antitheist, hindu, etc.)or lack thereof questionable.

Carry on. Bat signal.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 190
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 2:40:11 PM

The hostility is


The hostility is posting some bloggers comments like they were some sort of statistical data, when they're just anecdotal observations, and using those comments to demean and put down other posters for their viewpoints. Isn't this a "Debate?" It is...and this is why Dee is at the height of hypocrisy when she expresses a viewpoint but calls other bullies when they express theirs. Apparently Dee feels that only Dee can express her views (or others that agree with her viewpoint.)
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 191
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 4:03:19 PM

Our senses don't perform any "misperceptions"

I mentioned before, somewhere else, a PBS show I watched recently called something to the effect of The Brain/What Is Reality?...


...one of the things that it explains is how parts of your brain sends back more information than is sent in the other direction coming in from your senses. Part of what's happening is that your brain calls up previous understandings of sights and sounds etc, and uses that, instead of relying very much on what's actually coming in from the senses. It's like it gets a few cues from the senses, and then says "ah, ok, that's what this is", and just calls up a previous interpretation which it already has in store, and just uses that to tell you what you're seeing, instead of simply assimilating the live sense-information and reconstructing everything all over again every split second.

So...anyway...people talk about looking at the stars in the night sky and being able to see them in different colors. Well, I don't see stars in different colors. I just see them as white dots of light. I've always wondered about that. I otherwise see colors just fine, and in fact am very perceptive and sensitive to color and the many nuances of. (And I'm not color-blind at all.)

But being reminded of this from this t.v. show, which I already knew about, I started thinking - maybe there was some time in my distant past when I looked up at the stars, and because of whatever factors happened to be at play at that time, any color differentiation didn't manifest very well and/or I just didn't pay enough attention to it. Hence, the colors in the stars are there, but everytime I look up at them I am in that prison of still seeing my brain's 40-year-old-or-so template which it just keeps calling forth to show me, instead of letting me see the complete set of raw live data coming from my view of the nighttime stars at that moment.

I can never see red either in blood moons.

On this note...this may be part of what's at play whenever someone experiences certain kinds of trauma or crisis and afterwards they seem to be seeing, hearing, and smelling the world as if their senses were more alive or as if the world was new all over again...maybe the brain is ditching, or lost, some of it's templates and/or just decides to let you see more of that raw live data.
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 192
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 5:47:23 PM
Sun.

Material Reality is Material reality. Refraction, experience and position make a difference in perception.

A lake may look blue because I am sitting on a blue car. It may look green to someone lower sitting on green grass.

I do not equate perception with belief, although others may. If there are four people in a room and four chairs, there are four people in a room and four chairs. One's angle may let one only see three people and two chairs. Doesn't change the physical reality of the room.
Yeah, that blood moon thing. Me either. Maybe we are seeing it from a different angle.
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 193
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 7:11:15 PM
Mr. Drinks.....

Not really misperceptions.....what you are describing is when our brains "fill in the blanks" in the absence of information.
Lots of fun experiments to play around with this. I loved my sensory and perception classes in college, precisely, for this reason. :)


Oh and Mr. Jo van?
You are a doll. Thank you for the book suggestion. Could you give me the cliff notes?
I am sure a personal interpretation would keep me much more entertained. ;) ;)
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 194
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 7:50:37 PM
Yea, I wasn't speaking of misperceptions...it's a fill-in-the-blank thing. But who knows how much we miss...misperceive, heh...because of this?
 kj521
Joined: 9/20/2015
Msg: 195
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 8:02:30 PM
Mr. Drinks.....

Do we miss?

By definition....wouldn't we add to our experiences? :D




 congupnaroad
Joined: 7/22/2015
Msg: 196
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/20/2015 8:04:21 PM

But I don't think it should ever be "taught" in schools, or to anyone under the age of consent.
It still is, in my country.
We have a "head of state", who is also the "head of the state religion".
We have "state" religious schools, now growing, because of 'conservative" political dogma, under the guise of "academies", many of the newest ones being "muslim".
"Christian" state schools here, must have at least one "act of worship" per day, by law.
So in that sense,( to answer one of Vl's points about it being purely voluntary in the US) belief is "forced" on children here, it's the default position.
I don't think religions should ever be "imposing" their beliefs from such a position of power


I'm sure they have public schools in the UK.They do here along with private schools that are largely church funded and RE is voluntary, so no one is forcing their beliefs on anyone. So you claiming that religion is forced on children in the UK is BS.


In the case of the "pope", well, he has his very own "state".
I agree with Mary, organisations which are "charities", and claim to be "helping the poor", definitely shouldn't have billions, in their own banks


Would you rather charitable organisations had ZERO in the bank. Well then they couldn't be a charitable organisation then could they?



The words 'catholic' and 'conservative' (both with small ''c's) have become almost synonymous,
eg" he has catholic tastes." or " he has conservative tastes."
Both describe someone with old-fashioned tastes


Nice bit of stereotyping that!


So for me, the phrase "progressive christian" is a total 'oxymoron'. (like "military intelligence" is. )
How can you ever be "progressive", when you're only ever looking backwards, to the beliefs of the past?
It's like saying "Progressive Amish", or "progressive Druid"


How do you conclude that Christians can't think progressively because they are only ever looking backwards? Gee you don't mind stereotyping such a broad range of people and virtually insulting them, Wouldn't have anything to do with any personal bias now would it?



We've moved on, we know more than they did, back then


And that is called chronological snobbery.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 197
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/21/2015 12:50:40 AM
Oor jo

"And that hasn't been my experience either, most atheists I know, (in the UK) are actually left-wing, anti-capitalist types.
IE -NON-Materialist. (So I don't know where they get that idea.)"

Big man I'm enjoying this debate. I read EVERYONE'S posts. I'm no having a pop at you mind only your views. Now that i have had to
explain that here we go........

Most atheists I know in the uk actually would like to have money so they can live the life that well off middle class anti capitalists do.
You know money in their pockets, money to get a decent house rather than living in damp rat infested council housing schemes where no
wealthy anti capitalist dare tread.

I would say the majority of working class folk would hedge their bets and SOME form of christian funeral would be there for them. As everyone
seems to be using anecdotal stories when my best mate boysey tragically died his ma gave him a catholic funeral. He would have went garrity
if he knew she would have done that. Boysey hated the church with a vengence due to the beatings he used to get from priests.

Yet john ducked and dived to make money. To have a nice house, nice car, nice clothes, not snide fakes, food on the table for his bairns.

Maybe we just move in different circles oor jo.

As for religious education in schools. As far as i am aware state protestant schools get taught about all religions but again from what friends
tell me a lot of folk want to send their bairns to catholic schools because they think their bairns will get a better education.

My lassie was never indoctrinated in any religious belief but when she was wee she wanted to go to sunday school. I never said no. I let her
make her own mind up. And she now does the same with her bairns.

Religion, in my eyes is a lifestyle choice and should be kept out of schools. But hey wealthy anti capitalist atheists all seem to have attended 'good'
schools. Just look at mp and shadow cabinet he he 'left wing firebrand' the elitist, racist dianne abbot. Condemns others bairns to terrible terrible
state schools in her area yet sent her bairns to a nice exclusive school waaaay across london.

(yes and the boy vlad just scored a screamer against the mighty premier league poster oor jo and managed to slag of the labour party in a post about
hypocritical anti capitalists. Over to you in the studio trevor).

Vlad 'here canadians I'm going for poutine today in Edinburgh. My pal in ktown ontario raves about it and ive found a place that sells it' Dracul
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 198
The POPE
Posted: 10/21/2015 9:56:24 AM

Most atheists I know in the uk actually would like to have money so they can live the life that well off middle class anti capitalists do.
You know money in their pockets, money to get a decent house rather than living in damp rat infested council housing schemes where no wealthy anti capitalist dare tread.

Vlad, for a self-proclaimed "socialist" you certainly seem to like to point the finger at only the left-wing.
I don't think I've ever seen you write anything critical about our right-wing govt, who don't want any welfare state or social housing, at all! Who are cutting benefits, and forcing unemployed people into minimum-wage and/or zero-hours contracts.
The ONLY reason why we still have any social housing left, at all (though they're currently still selling it off to "property investors", and so it's diminishing,) is because of the Labour party.
The tories have been trying to get rid of it, since Maggie!
Do you feel that by constantly attacking (only) the labour party, this does anything to increase the chances of getting them elected?
Do you ever actually read any 'left-wing' sites, or just "Breitbart", the media-wing of UKIP., -both extremely right-wing, because that's all you ever seem to post.?
Everyone wants to live in clean, safe, secure accommodation, if the 'schemes' are as you describe, hold the SNP to task for it, they're in charge up there.
Doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a believer, everyone wants to feed their kids, and keep them somewhere safe.

But you're right about atheists often having religious funerals.
Mainly because THEY don't arrange their own funeral, it's left to relatives.
When my Dad died, my brother was at the hospital, and just opted for the "standard" funeral, when asked, immediately after his death. We almost argued about it, because Dad would have been horrified!
But religions like to 'move-in' immediately, when people are still in shock, and bereaved, and not really thinking clearly.
My Dad's partner, a lovely German lady, who he'd been with for the last 25 years or so of his life, would probably have opted for the "standard" service anyway. It's kind of "the default position".
When you're dead, it doesn't really seem to matter much, what you might have thought.
Sorry to hear about your mate,
I've had far too much of that myself. The way it's going, there'll be no-one left to come to mine!

Which brings me to education, and Congupna:
In this country, 30% of "state" schools ("public" schools are what we call private schools here!) are categorised as "faith" schools, and in order to "qualify", they must have at least ONE "act of worship". Usually a religious "assembly" first thing in the morning, which the whole school attends.
This will involve both prayers and hymns.
It doesn't matter which "faith", but that's the rule: At least ONE "act of worship".

This current government has rapidly increased the number of "faith schools" which are still publicly-funded, but now operate as "academies", and so are no longer under the control of local authorities. This means they can employ unqualified teachers, and choose their own syllabus. Including discredited shit like "creation", or "intelligent design"
I think it also exempts them from some "OFSTED" inspections too(?)
Of these new "faith" academies, many are "muslim".
That's what their parents want. The boys and girls are of course separated, and the girls covered-up, head-to-toe, as their religion demands..
I don't feel that producing yet another generation, indoctrinated from an early age, in the religions of their parents' choice, will do anything to improve the chances of a future peaceful, and harmonious society.

Vlad could probably back me up here, (?) because where he lives, the protestant/catholic feuds still exist, and having 'sectarian' education does nothing but entrench this divide.
If you don't ever 'mix' with people, it's easy to stereotype them, and often to grow to 'hate' them too.
They found the same thing in Northern Ireland, and I believe that there are more 'mixed' schools there now, and less 'sectarianism' in education, and things have improved as a result.

For all their claims to be "peaceful", different religious beliefs have always led to conflicts.
IMO "Faith Schools" will only make things worse.

By being 'pro-religion', you're also being 'pro-muslim religion'.
In fact, the biggest advocates for the expansion of "mosques" and more and more "muslim faith schools", (in the UK) are the "christian" faiths and churches.

The £80 million (and climbing) "Center for Islamic Studies" in my own town, was originally refused planning permission by the local planning authorities, but that decision was then overturned, after an intervention by none-other than HRH Prince Charles.
So we now have a rather beautiful, if slightly 'Disneyesque' (IMO) new mosque (we already had several), complete with domes and 'minarets', built in the same (expensive) matching stone as, and amongst our famous 16th century "dreaming spires"..
Charley, the tree-hugging, "alternative-medicine-loving, hypocritical-adulterer and tampon-wannabee, is also 'heir to the throne' here, and has stated that once he's king, he intends to change the title from "defender of THE faith", (singular) to "defender of faith" (plural, any faith), as he's a "friend of muslims". He will become the new head of the CoE.

The leaders of the "faith" which YOU might support/subscribe to, and think entirely benign, will also support other faiths, whether you like it or not.
There's no democracy in religion.

The growth of "islam" here, has been promoted, championed, and supported, by the leaders of both the RC and the 'Anglican' and other "christian" churches.
Be careful what you wish for.


And that is called chronological snobbery.

Is it??
Have the 'courage of your convictions' then.
Turn off your computer, Disconnect your electricity supply,
smash all the glass from all your windows, (but only use bronze or stone tools,) get your water from a well, or river, live with your animals indoors, build a 'camp-fire' in the middle of your only room,(but no 'fire brigade' don't forget) never ever consult a modern doctor, and shit in a hole in the ground.

Because that's how people lived, when these myths were first conceived.
-Call that "chronological snobbery" if you like, but I prefer to think of it as "progress".

Dee

Your posts prove as true what I quoted. Well, you serve as one example.

And what your posts "prove" is that you don't know what the word "prove" means!

So, there is really nothing to add, in that respect.

You've really "added" nothing to the debate, at all, so far.
Just some ad hominem attacks, on dissenters to religion.

So you're angry that in a thread about the "pope", other people didn't just see it as "glad tidings".
That's how it goes with threads. You can't say "positive responses only"
(Well you could try, but it wouldn't work!)

The "pope" is the head of an organisation which not only sexually abused, raped, and beat children, maybe for centuries, but then, when (comparatively recently) made aware of the scale and seriousness, instead of acting immediately to protect children, chose instead to try and cover it up.
And even in some cases, paid off the victims, as long as they first signed 'non-disclosure agreements', but allowed the sick child-molesters to remain as 'priests', and simply move them to 'new pastures'.
In one case I remember reading about, even after the man had already been convicted by a (secular) court!

The churches have enjoyed immunity from any scrutiny or criticism, for far too long IMO.
Mainly because, in my lifetime, it's mostly been illegal to commit "blasphemy", by daring to question it's "teachings".
And we've seen what they've done, with their immunity from any criticism.
The "blasphemy" laws have gone now. (2003!)
You don't like my opinion?
-Don't read it.

I get that you (and others here) don't think it's "logical" that us non-believers should be "allowed" to criticise religions.

But religions "lobby" and campaign against all sorts of political and 'secular' choices.
We have "bishops" in our upper legislative chamber, ("The House of Lords") passing, or vetoing our 'secular' laws.
Laws on abortion, birth control, stem-cell research, and most recently, the "Assisted dying Bill", which all "christian" churches opposed, so it didn't get through.
"Voluntary Euthanasia", you'd think the 'clue' was in the title, the wish by the terminally ill, to end their OWN days, in a humane and dignified way.
THEIR wishes.
But religions don't think YOU should be allowed to decide your own death.
They think that's a "sin", -because of their religious dogma.
Maybe some even think that such abject suffering brings you closer to "god".

They lobby on welfare, on cinema releases and other arts and censorship.
Where I live, they got a 'pole-dancing club' closed-down, because it was "too close" to a church, and even though it wasn't ever operating on sunday mornings, when the church was, apparently it's very presence hurt their eyes or their poor little faces.

And it was "christian" beliefs which prompted the "Balfour declaration" and subsequent support for the re-establishment of "Israel", because the "christian" narrative and mythology coincided with the "jewish" one.
Personally, I don't think that little experiment has worked out too well.

Then there's the rest of the middle east, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
And now "ISIS". (NO, not the lovely river, where I live)

Religions have had, and continue to have, a huge impact on our lives, everywhere in the world, whether we "believe" in their mythology, or not.
We have a "right" to be critical of them, because of that.

I don't think that (believers) are actually "worshiping" "god"/s at all. (There's no evidence)
I think that they're worshiping other (ordinary) people, who put themselves at the top of these religions, like the "pope".
Hundreds of thousands turned out, and they're all happy.?
Sounds like a Michael Jackson concert.
He was also "worshiped", he also made people happy too. Only those worshipers were referred to as "groupies".

The same was also true of "Sir" Jimmy Savile.
He was also worshiped, and thousands lined the streets when his "golden" coffin was carried 'in state', to his burial.
He also "did a lot of work for charity", because it gave him access to vulnerable children too, whom he then abused.

Max Clifford could "get you a break in show-biz", -but he'd need to see your 15 year-old tits first.
Many other 'celebrities' have abused from their elevated positions, in similar ways, having power, or wealth or influence, ensured a steady stream of 'young hopefuls', or 'groupies'.

I think the "pope" is more like a celebrity 'media figure', being worshiped, than a religious figure.
It should say "Santander" or "Pepsi" or something, on the back of his cape.
And I think that celebrity worship is a dangerous thing.
For the above reasons.

In our (western) societies, celebrity worship has been greatly encouraged, -mainly by the media, who see it as just another 'advertising space'.
Each brand-new "celebrity", once created, (often 'famous' for nothing more than just being famous,) can get lucrative "sponsorship" and contracts from advertisers.
The celebrity gets very wealthy, very quickly, for doing nothing of any merit, -and the advertisers get to sell more products.
It's a "win/win" isn't it?
Thus our "morality" gets decided by "the markets".
We worship whomever they tell us to worship.

Parents were literally queuing-up, to hand their children over to all these people, because they were 'celebrities', (or priests) and they were worshiped. (And 'respected', and 'trusted' and never doubted)
Having been sent somewhere, by your own parents, must have made the "grooming" of vulnerable children, all that much easier.

Funnily enough, so far, "god" has never stopped a single child from being raped, by his own 'chosen' "holy men", in his own "holy" churches.

When religions stop trying to interfere in everyone else's lives,
I'll stop being (so) critical of them.
Until then, it's 'fair game'.
IMHO
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 199
view profile
History
The POPE
Posted: 10/21/2015 10:45:25 AM
Oor jo

"Vlad, for a self-proclaimed "socialist" you certainly seem to like to point the finger at only the left-wing.
I don't think I've ever seen you write anything critical about our right-wing govt, who don't want any welfare state or social housing, at all! Who are cutting benefits, and forcing unemployed people into minimum-wage and/or zero-hours contracts.
The ONLY reason why we still have any social housing left, at all (though they're currently still selling it off to "property investors", and so it's diminishing,) is because of the Labour party.
The tories have been trying to get rid of it, since Maggie!
Do you feel that by constantly attacking (only) the labour party, this does anything to increase the chances of getting them elected?
Do you ever actually read any 'left-wing' sites, or just "Breitbart", the media-wing of UKIP., -both extremely right-wing, because that's all you ever seem to post.?
Everyone wants to live in clean, safe, secure accommodation, if the 'schemes' are as you describe, hold the SNP to task for it, they're in charge up there.
Doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a believer, everyone wants to feed their kids, and keep them somewhere safe."

I do not need to be a 'self proclaimed' socialist. I KNOW what my politics are. Why do i never mention the tories? Because i could never ever bring myself to vote tory. I KNOW they hate me and my kind. I was a member of the UCATT union up until 6 weeks ago when i had to sign on again due to lack of work. Remember labour promised before the last election to out do the tories on welfare cuts. Burnham wanted to privatise parts of the nhs. And how many council homes did labour build when they ruled the roost mate?

I could never d isrespect ma ma and dads life by ever voting tory. I attack labour because the abandoned and lied to the working class. You know that is true as well as i do.

On topic yep i agree with you about sectarianism up here. Nursery bairns wrenched apart to attend either a proddy or a bead rattler school. You want hatred as i said go to ibrox in glasgow wearing green at the football you get man, woman and child hurling abuse at you. Then you have their ugly sisters at celtic who abuse prods for the duration of the match.

Religion should have plums to do with schooling. Did you read about the forced bussing they tried in oldham after muslim and non muslim fought pitched battles? They forced bairns to mix. Lol what a joke. Muslims would sit no where near other bairns. A noble idea. But useless.

In dalkeith just outside edinburgh they built two new schools on the same land. The bairns attended either the catholic school or the proddy school.
They shared the same dinner halls and recreation rooms. The first week it kicked off big time. Sectarian violence screamed the press.

But my lassies pals went to the school. It was gang violence from all the schemes who attended the school.

I do not have any solution and ive not seen anything that addresses the problem. Maybe secularism might work as the frogs do. Maybe not though.

P.s breitbart take their stories from other media. The reference and link the other media. And yes i read a lot of political sites mate.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 200
The POPE
Posted: 10/21/2015 1:47:10 PM
Blood moons? Never really saw them till I owned a good pair of binoculars. I imagine a small telescope would work, as well.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The POPE