As you may have notice, this message is very long. Please take a while and read it a few times, in chunks, before you respond. I ask a lot of questions here so I’d like it you pretended as if you were asking the questions to yourself.

I should have qualified my statement about religions. I meant to clarify that in the Persian and Pre-Rome regions of the world, which were primarily Pagan, a huge majority of the religions didn’t have religious structures that were based around fear, for the most part. Yes, I admit that there was the concept of retribution from the gods but it wasn’t anything to the degree of everlasting punishment. I currently don’t know anything about the religions of the very early Americas (Mayans, etc). It wasn’t until the god concepts became more personalized and more humans that it became more about fear. There is a natural progression in the ideological development in religions that goes from being nothing about humans to being all about humans. Eternal suffering or anything resembling a “hell” is relatively new and came about around the time of monotheistic religions.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

Here is another great question. How much of your belief system is tied to your identity; how much do you identify with it, personally or socially? Meaning, if you came to disbelieve what you now believe, would you know who you are or would you have a sort of identity crisis? If you stopped believing as you do now, do you feel that you would you lose a part of who you are?

You ask a good question in “Maybe it is you who is delusion and I see things as they actually are.” Yes, perhaps I am and perhaps you are and perhaps we both are. So how can we know, how would we find out, what kinds of tests and experiments could we do to illuminate the answer. It isn’t good enough to simply say that we both might be delusional; therefore our views are equally valid. Either one of us is correct and the other is not, or we are both incorrect.
You know, I used to have a dualistic view on the nature of humans. I used to believe in the soul or the spirit as something separate from the body. I used to resonate heavily with the lyrics of Tool and the ideas behind the art of Alex Grey.

I guess my biggest question would stem from this statement that you made
“My faith is that i have a spirit, a soul, a divine spark that is connected to the ALL, the ONE, also known as "the source".”
What makes you think that there is an “ALL”, a “ONE” or “the source” and how do you know that you’re not just fooling yourself? What would it mean if you discovered that it’s probably not true, and that the real explanation for the subjective experiences that you’ve had are far more elegant and interesting than the ideas of spirituality that you currently hold?

To be blunt, I don’t think that you’re thinking this whole notion of an ego through far enough. It sounds like you’re just accepting the ideas as being true without going through the motions of analyzing what the concept implies. The notion of an ego implies several things; one of which is that we as humans are special to the degree that we have egos when, either, other animals don’t, or, other animals are better than us in controlling it. The questions then become, do other animals have egos? If so, how does the ego operate in them? Do other life forms, such as plants or bacteria, also have egos, or does the ego require a certain degree of cognitive function? If the ego does require certain cognitive functions to be noticeable, and since we are extremely closely related to other apes such as chimpanzees, do they also exhibit features of having egos? If they don’t and having an ego is strictly a human feature, what happened during the development of the brain that allowed for the access to what we might call the ego and at this point, do we really believe that the “ego” is actually something that exists outside of the brain? If it doesn’t exist outside of the brain than how can we separate who you perceive as yourself and what you perceive as the “ego”? Are all “ego’s” the same or is it brain dependent with variations depending on brain structure and chemistry? Can you see why I would say that the notion of the ego as something outside of or separate from oneself is inherently egotistical.

The way that you talk about the ego makes it seem mystical and somehow separate from “self”. To me, that sounds like someone trying to escape responsibility. Why not just cut out the middle man and admit that you, not your ego, has the tendency to be possessive, needy, insecure, wishes for self-aggrandizement, etc. The notion that “negative” qualities are part and partial of some sort of external thing that is separate from “you” just seems childish to me, not to mention, completely unsupported by research.

For myself, I suppose that I recoil at the idea of an “ALL”, or “ONE”, or “the source” because it doesn’t really answer any questions. If someone were presenting these ideas to me for the first time, I would immediately start asking questions like “What is it made out of, what kind(s) of particles?” “How does it perpetuate?” “What is the physics of this thing?” “By what mechanism does it connect to everything?” “How does a source not also have its own source?” “What tests and experiments can we do to learn more about this thing?” “What objective information do we have about it?” “Does this thing operate differently between animate and inanimate objects?” “If spirit or soul is inherent in the system, do animals and plants also have a spirit or soul?” “What exactly constitutes as a spirit or soul, what can it be defined by?” “Did “the source” have a beginning or a history?”

I think you understand my point. My problem with subjectively believing something is true is that it’s more susceptible to not going far enough in scrutiny. It is much easier to subjectively believe something that feels good or feels right and not go any further than that. Very few subjective beliefs translate into objective or rational understandings of nature; it’s very easy to get it wrong. Subjective beliefs are as prone to fallibility as humans are to irrational thinking.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
hmmmm..
i disagree with your statement that only the monotheistic religion control by fear.
buddhism (yes..buddhism) shinto,mayan,toltec,arminianism,zoroastriasm..the list is legion and they ALL have punishment/reward doctrine.each at varying degrees but its in there.

i do enjoy hearing an atheists perspective on how my faith translates.
very..analytical of you my friend.
suffice to say my faith is born from personal revelation and has been an ongoing revelation since i was 14.
nothing i have encountered or experienced has taken away from this revelation,in fact it has strengthened it.
could i be delusional?
i guess its possible.
or maybe it is you who are delusional and i see things as they actually are.
not trying to be an ass,just pointing out the subjective nature of this particular polemic.

i guess..in its most simplest of terms.
my faith is that i have a spirit,a soul,a divine spark that is connected to the ALL,the ONE,also known as "the source".
freud believed that the ego WAS who you were.i could not disagree with that more.
the ego is who you THINK you are.predicated and perpetrated by those who are close to you.
we cant help that.it is very human.
so around 12 yrs old we start to have a sense of self.this self understands the world and how he/she interacts with it by rules set by his/her parents.
as we grow older so does the circle of influence i.e:friends,lovers,teachers etc etc.
think about this for a second because i am expressing a very huge idea in a very short amount of time and glossing over all the implications of said idea.

my philosophy..or my faith if you will,views the ego as my "false" self.
the ego wishes only to validate itself (thats why mass marketing is very VERY effective).
the ego wishes to perpetuate its own existence by way of constant feed-back.
the ego gets jealous and possesive.
the ego gets insecure and needy.
the ego has demands...and desires...which seek only for self aggrandizement.
now societal roles consisting of compassion and empathy will,and can,curb the destructive nature of the ego (think your teenage years and just how self centered you were to give you an idea of ego gone wild)

through my faith and discipline i am quite aware of my ego and have suppressed it to the point where it no longer manipulates my thinking nor my emotions.
so i have no urge nor a desire to be perceived as "correct" because to me that is irrelevant.
(though i do prefer to be "corrected" if i misstate something).
i do not experience jealousy,nor envy.
but i do experience pride.
i do not allow anothers limited perception of me based on their own subjective reasoning influence how i feel about who i am.
i am open and honest because my faith is that we are all connected with the divine and to lie,steal or cheat you is to be doing to myself also.
i do not judge anothers faith or lack of it because that is THEIR path and the only time i ever feel the need to intercede is when it flows into my domain and affects me in some way.

even as i write these words,which to me seem pretty articulate and clear,i know that you will understand them based solely on..well..your understanding.
i do not say that as a slight but rather a statement.
trying to convey complex thought patterns by way of text can be so..limiting.

everything i do or say i do so with spirit in mind.
sometimes i fail..sometimes i succeed.
i am human.
with a spirit! ziiiiing!
anyways..
i really do enjoy our conversations.
you are a pleasure my friend.
namaste.
(look that word up btw..its a great word)

Ha, I must have been typing up my mini-rant when you wrote this. Yes, I suppose her main power not found in the pages is to give woodrows to many fanboys.

And FYI: She rarely uses the invisible jet anymore. She mostly uses it to transport people or equipment, but even this is very infrequent.

But she still likes to give hugs!>> ^NetRunner:

She also has super-strength, super-agility, can deflect bullets with her bracelets, throw her tiara like a boomerang, fly an invisible jet, and talk to animals.
Yes, her main power is to make boys have a fetish for star-spangled panties, red leather boots, and golden-eagle bustiers, but there are others...

She also has super-strength, super-agility, can deflect bullets with her bracelets, throw her tiara like a boomerang, fly an invisible jet, and talk to animals.

Yes, her main power is to make boys have a fetish for star-spangled panties, red leather boots, and golden-eagle bustiers, but there are others...

Thanks, my friend. Yours was the one to put it over the top.
In reply to this comment by enoch:
i got ya stormsinger..
great voice and this belongs in *electronica
and it deserves to be sifted
*promote

Evidence? I sure don't hear any of the artifacts I've come to associate with autotuning.
>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If by purest you mean autotuned, then yes, it is one of the purest voices out there.

Yeah, that's pretty good. I was wondering who the hell threw the boomerang.

I'd love to see the same pictograms judged by someone who isn't a "designer". These images are made to please the fans of the games, not those with an overactive sense of the aesthetic.

I know lots of people would say the Sydney boomerang style ones were a lot cooler than the rather plain Chinese ones. Same goes for the Salt Lake City ones, which this guy seems to fail just because they had straight lines.

Designers, critics, specialists, etc. rarely seem to have the same tastes as the masses these things were made for.

I still think the term neolib is inflammatory as opposed to balancing out the misuse of neocon

Neocon is inflammatory when used to portray everyday conservative politics as extremist. The left has no grounds to take umbrage when the tactic boomerangs and they are painted as the extremists. That's the zeitgeist.

I don't see any evidence that there is a unified liberal movement with those ideas as part of its platform. That's how you see it because you conceive of yourself as being opposed to them.

Well - I never said they were one unified movement. They are a philosophy and a political point of view. There isn't one 'unified movement' for the neocons either. There are splinter groups, factions, lobbys, and advocates of all stripes on both sides of the asile. But neolib is 'left' as neocon is 'right' and both are very much movements. It'll shock you, but I think the Republican party today is dominated by neolibs. They are big government tax & spenders - and that's leftist. There are precious few fiscal conservatives, and we desperately need to put a bunch of fiscal 'neocons' in charge. The problem is that neocons are cumbered with a lot of stupid right wing social voters who are myopically focused on irrelevant garbage like abortion, stem cells, gay rights, and all that sort of stuff.

Frankly - I wouldn't care if we elected a President that legalized drugs, legalized gay marriage, loved abortion, and shot stem cells out of fire hoses. If he was a true FISCAL CONSERVATIVE who would balance the budget, reduce the size of the federal government, and put our spending in the black then I'd vote for them without thinking once.

But if you listen to those pundits, they paint me and anyone that dislikes them with the same brush, we're all zombies for Obama, communists, or "neolibs."

Yeah - and Madcow, Olbermann & left wing pundits are painting average citizens as right wing nut-jobs just because they are protesting Obama's huge deficit spending & other leftist politics. Go figure... How many vids have shown up on the sift that lambaste the protesters, call them nazis, and otherwise impugn the free political speech of people who lean right? A lot. Pot - meet kettle.

What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back?

(SPOILER ALERT)

A stick.

-------------------------------------------
Little boy walks into a whore house dragging a dead flat frog on a leash behind him. He walks up to the Mistress who's eying him curiously, "Uhm.. yes little boy? Can I help you?". The boy looks up and replies, "I want a lady right now, and she better have active herpes.".

"WHAT? I think you better just leave..", to this the boy slams a large set of bills down on the counter in front of him. The lady shrugs noticing the considerable amount of money before her, "Alright, one dirty whore coming up.". With that she sends the boy upstairs.

Later the boy comes walking down the stairs looking rather relieved and begins heading for the door. The lady pipes up, "Kid.. come over here. Now, I can understand wanting to come into this establishment looking for your first time, but.. why on god's earth where you looking to catch disease?".

"Well", the boy replied, "now that I've caught herpes I'm gonna go home back to the baby sitter and she'll catch herpes.". The lady blinks, "W-what?". The boy's eyes narrow looking somewhat perturbed at having to explain further, "Later, my parents will come back and my dad will drive the baby sitter home, and then he'll have herpes.". Once again the lady is shocked at what she's hearing. "By morning my mom will have herpes.", the boy continued. "B-but why? Why would you?", the boy shook his head, "After dad goes to work the mailman will come and that's the son of a bitch who ran over my frog!".

"I look forward to finding out whether you get the grappling hook or boomerang first in this new Zelda"

it's twenty degrees here today (that's like 80F for you Yanks). I'm thinking about launching myself off the boomerang bump.
*beg

So my house is out in the woods and needless to say a lot of mice come in especially when it gets cold. I have these clear plastic trap door live mice traps that work great. I usually drive down the street and let them go...hoping maybe they find a new home in some neighbors house or something.

This winter it has been particularly cold and snowy and I've been too lazy at midnight when I catch them to shovel the driveway so I just toss them out the back door. The next morning I catch the rascal again. I can see the little footprints in the snow running right back to the house and somehow making its way inside again. One plump mouse in particular went through this routine for a week or so until I finally drove him away. He seemed tamer than the rest. I named him boomerang. I miss that little sucker. The end.

Had $20 sitting in my PayPal account from part of my fantasy football winnings so I boomeranged it your way.

i'll donate, but if we don't make the goal, i say we spend the money on a giant sift meetup, complete with weed, hookers, blow, boomerangs, scotch, and shrimp off the barbie. oh, and a copy of the movie airplane.

$50 coming your way. Don't spend it all on BBQ shrimp and boomerangs.