darth_ender

Glad you're OK :)

Oops wrong thread.

Possessed, please be safe my friend.  Do not try to quit drinking without professional help.  You can go into seizures and die if you do not.  But get on the right track and save that liver of yours :)

That's pretty awesome. I would love to see that it'd be especially great for Ryan McAvoy's edit.

If you're in such dire straits, do you not qualify for Medicaid services?  They would pay for treatment.

I definitely think so.  Quitting alcohol is very dangerous when you are addicted.  Get medical help to get through the DTs.  They can be life threatening.

Yes, those who have shared so much have really been interesting, and I applaud you for your successes.  Remember how failure in many instances can be more important than success in our growth.  Don't let such failure get you down.  Thanks to Ric and EyeShotFirst for the insight into your lives.

Personally, I don't understand to what redundancy you refer.

Thank you for the very thoughtful and interesting response, Possessed.  Nice to know you a little better.  I hope others give it a try as well.  Not a whole lot of discussion can be had, but every now and then we can share a little insight about ourselves.

Hey, it was the wrong topic, but I personally enjoyed the debate.

Maybe if you pray for it...

AntcuFaalb said:

RicOlie_2 said:

God couldn't do that any more than he could make a square circle. It doesn't make him less omnipotent.

If He is responsible for making the rules, then why must He abide by them?

 From a more theological standpoint, and possibly more confined to Mormonism, this is the answer I believe:

God governs the universe by keeping the laws he has created.  Were he to violate his own laws, he could not be the perfect Governor of all things, and would therefore not be qualified to be God.

Mormon 9:19

God is God because he wills himself to do all things perfectly.  He has infinite wisdom.

See, things are definitely getting deeply philosophical.  Were similar arguments turned on atheism, the questions would arise such as:

Why is there anything at all?
Why are there any laws governing nature?
Where did those laws come from?
Why are such laws permanent?

...and...

If the universe is self-organizing, and if after an infinite number of universe collapses/explosions, with 100 octillion stars and so many worlds and so much matter and energy, is it not possible that a being capable of taking control of the universe and the laws of nature and gain all possible knowledge and wisdom?

We are different people in real life than on the Net.  The anonymity of the World Wide Web often grants us courage and cowardice to express and hide certain traits we would otherwise not express or have a difficult time containing.  I am starting this thread as sort of a confession thread.  I don't want to know dirty secrets or anything, but basically I thought it might be fun to share and contrast the differences in how we express ourselves online vs. in real life.

I personally am different in a few ways.  I tend to be rather blunt here about my opinions.  I don't mean to cause offense, but I simply state my opinion rather straightforwardly.  I am an opinionated person in real life, but I tend to be more tactful, to a fault even, when sharing my opinion.  If someone pushes me, I will beat them in the head with my opinion, but often I find that it is a battle not worth fighting and I drop it.  Here on this site, I notice I have a hard time dropping things, especially if I feel passionate about it.

I am somewhat shy in real life.  Not terribly so, though I used to be.  I don't always speak up immediately.  However, I have gained a great deal of confidence over the years (I don't believe I am arrogant, but then most arrogant people don't :P ), and therefore I open up more quickly with people, but it still can be a difficult task for me.

As I've been teased before for it, my tendency to quickly apologize for causing offense is far more pronounced in reality.  I hate to hurt others.  I can be very self conscious as well, and worry about whether others like me far more than I wish.

I do consider myself intelligent and well spoken in reality.  I can be a bit of a grammar fascist in reality as I tend to be here.

I tend to be very conscientious of the religion that I so proudly proclaim here, and I do all in my power to represent my faith well.  In real life I let my guard down far more than I wish.  I truthfully slip up and swear rather regularly, though I try never to do so.  Sometimes I tell a naughty joke though I try to control myself.  I am kind of quick-witted, and with that comes impulsivity as my thoughts flow right out my mouth, and I don't always catch myself quickly enough.

You know, when I was young I remember plotting a four-celled chart about how much I knew and didn't know about myself vs. how much others did and did not know.  Depending on which cells were largest and smallest, you hid much from others and from yourself, etc.  I think I liked to consider myself mysterious at the time and plotted myself very unknown, both to others and to myself.  Was this true?  Probably not.  I think I was rather shallow back then.  But over the years I have become a very introspective person.  I try to not only feel, but figure out why I am feeling, not only think, but figure out why I am thinking.  I really look pretty deep at my own thoughts, motivations, and foibles.  I can honestly say that while I'm sure many of my own characteristics are evident to others and not to me (like my crappy sense of fashion), I think I can honestly say that were I to draw such a graph again, the quadrant representing that of myself that was hidden from my consciousness would be much, much smaller.

While this may not seem relevant to the thread, it has bearing in that this sort of thread can be a great exercise in learning more about yourself.  You may come to realize that you have or lack certain traits you thought otherwise before.

Anyone care to join in?  Don't share overly personal stuff, but please let us know who you really are on some level.  And while you're at it, you may discover more about yourself as well.

DominicCobb said:

Consider this: a man is born in a society completely devoid of religion. He has no concept of a higher power--the thought has never crossed his mind. He is an atheist because he doesn't believe in a God. But does he truly believe there is no God?

 You are not the first to ask such a question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

According to these definitions, such a person is in fact an atheist of the implicit brand.  Again, you show that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of atheism.

All this discussion would have been great in a couple of other better threads, i.e. the Atheist thread, the Religion thread, or even the philosophy thread.

I think you failed to realize that I am doing the opposite of generalizing.  I am saying that others are generalizing, while I am pointing out that there are many categories within the umbrella term of atheism.  I am in fact saying that atheism is neither a religion, nor is it not a religion.  It is a demographic of people who may or may not be religious.

AntcuFaalb said:

I'll stick with labeling myself as a Strong Agnostic. It makes a much stronger claim than Atheism does and it requires no leaps of faith.

To save ya'll the Google trip:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

 So this thread is not for you then:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Weak-Atheist-Thread/topic/14351/

:(

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

 Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.

Look, I am saying it is neither.  It is like saying being human means you are American.  There are humans who are Americans, humans who are not Americans, but defining the whole as Americans is foolish.  The same applies to my argument.  But perhaps I better rephrase.  Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.

Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography? Where is the anything that would define something as a religion?

Are these requisite for religion?

Warbler said:

btw, I looks up the definition of religion:

1

a :  the state of a religious religion>

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

4

:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 Hmmmm...nope, those are not required traits you mentioned.

Arguing that it's even vaguely similar is a bit silly.

 But there is in fact similarity in many areas.  Take for instance the extremely dogmatic view that so many atheists adopt, including you.  To be an atheist, you must not believe in any divine being, or anything supernatural, or practice any rituals, or have any clergy.  You must accept that humans descended from primates.  You must accept that there is no afterlife.  You must accept that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the universe is 14 billion years old.  Some might even adopt the view that all religious persons are ignorant, whether willfully or not.

Do not such strict demands on the definition of atheism not sound something like a creed?

We can find other parallels.  You ask about priests.  There are no atheist priests, but what is a priest beyond being a religious authority.  Are there not authorities in the atheist world?  The Dawkinses of the world could be considered as having an analogous role.  How about rituals?  We humans thrive on rituals and symbols, even atheists.  How many atheists celebrate Christmas, Easter, and other holidays rooted in Christianity and paganism?  How many find self affirmation through other common rituals, celebrating humanity, nature, birth, etc.?  How many even turn to religion-bashing for self-affirmation, putting up posters every Christmas season why we do not need Christ to celebrate Christmas?  Here is an article worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/why-non-believers-need-rituals-atheists

What else did you say?  Let's see, creation myths!  May I ask you, if you met an atheist who did not believe mankind evolved from apes but instead was planted as a scientific experiment by aliens, would you say he is not an atheist?  And as you answer, consider that his atheism is not on trial in this scenario, but rather yours, as you may in fact be subscribing to a dogmatic creation story  And while it may be very scientifically based with much supporting evidence, is it not still just as firmly entrenched in your mind as the only acceptable belief for one to be considered a "true" atheist?

Now let me draw some more comparisons.  I had a patient very recently who did not believe in any god.  She did not worship anything, practice any rituals, believe in an afterlife, or follow any clergy.  And yet, when I asked the question, "Are there any religious or spiritual requests you have while you are in the hospital?"  She said, "I'm not religious, but I I am spiritual: I believe in nature.  I love to hike and be among the trees."

Is she atheist?  Yes, in fact she is.  She does not believe nature had any supernatural properties, but found spiritual fulfillment by being with nature.  Now she is not religious per se, but she is spiritual.  And she is an atheist.

Can we take it a step further?  Could she and a group of others in fact develop a system of beliefs and holidays and even rituals surrounding their adoration of the natural world whilst remaining "without god" or anything else supernatural?  Clearly she can.

Now let me refer you to the following article, and I encourage you to read it.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/AtheismReligion.htm

The article says:

Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, but atheism is quite compatible with religion.

....

To understand why, it is necessary to keep in mind that atheism is nothing more than absence belief in the existence of gods. Atheism is not the absence of religion, the absence of belief in the supernatural, the absence of superstitions, the absence of irrational beliefs, etc. Because of this, there is no inherent barrier preventing atheism from being part of a religious belief system

When I attended the University of Arizona, I recall an article written by a fellow named Taylor Kessinger.  I've not been successful in finding it thus far (I referred to it once before), but his condemnation of "superstitious" atheists led to a surprising backlash.  Yes, my friend, religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and the more you try to pin your narrow definition onto what you feel atheism should be, the more you prove my point by adopting and advocating for such a strict, almost doctrinal position.

[JEDIT: Found the article.  I guess they must have been reworking their archives last time I looked.

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists

The many replies he got were in the physical newspaper and are not online, unfortunately.]

In fact many religious persons and religions are atheistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion

My point to all this is not to say atheism is another religion.  I am not of that crowd that says it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God, etc., etc.  I am saying that there are parallels, aspects that could be considered spiritual or religious in nature, and religions that are in fact atheistic.  So again I say:

darth_endersaid:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

Along with this I add my clarification from earlier in this lost:

Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.

I think it is important to note that both views are too generalized.  Atheism literally means "without a god".  Many branches of buddhism are atheistic, in that there is no god or divine creator, just the advancement of creation to Nirvana and a state of being Buddha.  Many who do not believe in any god believe very devotedly in aliens, fortune telling, etc.  Even non-religious folks still find spiritual connection through nature.  Many people may act ritualistic in settings that are not traditionally considered religious, such as in fraternal organizations, concerts, political gatherings and dogma, etc.  My point is that atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.  There are many subsets, and in reality many of those subsets contain elements which could be construed as religious in a sense.

Thanks a lot, guys. I really appreciate it :)

No worries.  I don't need ego inflation.  I just had to share.  Good to hear from you again :)

Ah, another hypocrisy discussion just got better.

So Bewy did his work super quick and had his translation done in no time.  However, I had to do the easy job of simply making adjustments to make the translation to English more accurate...and I took a very long time.  But I finally finished my task, and Bewy incorporated it into a pdf, and so here we finally have the rules to Dejarik in English!

https://mega.co.nz/#!ChgzDRTb!P3ZIpkqsPJskSYNnkFgMTj04owd41-dNr8xivfq0ktI

Seriously, Bewy did an amazing job and I am so thankful for his work and patience with me.  Many thanks to him!

The inventor of these rules states that he hasn't tried out the advanced rules much, so if anyone else gives it a try and finds problems, he said he was open to suggestions.

I think I have the Aussie DVD version: all the clones speak with Aussie accents.

BACTA MASK was also available in a very brief clip in one of the original trailers, thus likely contributing to his faulted memory as well.