Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I apologize for deliberately misusing the term 'skeptic' as well, but the informal cabal that puts itself in the public eye for the purpose (seemingly) of depressing the Waxies of the world calls itself skeptical, so that is the term I choose to use. I have also grown fond of the term "fundamaterialist", as it is perhaps more precise (and pretty funny).

Yes, maybe coining new words is useful there, and that does chime with me, because of what I said before - the people you are talking about are quite fundamental in their thinking about materialism - like christian or moslem fundamentalism. I feel a tiny bit offended, but not by you personally, more by them for hijacking the word and violating it so that 'sceptic' is associated with such arrogant materialism. I think another way to counter their attacks is to keep reminding them that they're not skeptics, but believers. I did. Beware, they don't like it. I even said science was a religion - - and started using the word 'scientism' at the JREF.

On the other hand, I think some of these attacks feed off each other. Some of those fundamaterialists (I've changed my mind - it's too long!) were deeply angry about the power of the christian fundies and their agenda to outlaw the teaching of evolutionary theory. As a Brit, I didn't know the seriousness of this, and was shocked by it. I think the reaction to that has been for materialists, atheists and agnostics to fight against any philosophy that is unsupported by evidence. Obviously, some people will find it odd that I'm putting that as a problem, having read my own critique of 'superstition' - but it is one thing to have open debate where individuals can discuss and make up their own minds and where there is a reasonable degree of respect (ok, I lose it sometmes too) - and the mass indoctrination of adults and children through TV and the school curriculum in fundamentalist christianity, with all that wealth they have.

So we have scientific zealots up in arms because the US seems to be being taken over by crazy jesus freaks (has been taken over?), and then they spray venom at anyone who has any kind of spiritual belief.

I happen to be very materialist at the moment and give IMers a hard time cuz think you're all nuts, but I mean that in a nice, sceptical kind of a way!

I just think fundamentalism of any kind is quite a danger, including scientific, materialist fundamentalism. The bottom line for me is that we need to learn to get along better with respect for difference - unity in diveristy.

I've been thinking about the US, a country founded by puritans, writing a constitution based on individual freedom - there's a tense paradox.

What's this term 'waxy'; I don't know it. Presumably you call yourself wax frog because of it, yeah? And the frog bit - any significance? Tsk, these nooooobs! BTW, Wax Frog, I was moved to read about your self-torment with the choking scenario, particularly because I had something vaguely similar, where I used to torment myself with scary images of faces - horrible monsters, the most horrific demons I could summon - rushing towards me in the dark as I lay in bed as a child. I knew I was doing it to myself, but then there was this question about how real were they, and then how far would I go with it - would I lose control and actually ... what? probably 'die' was my feeling - or at least not be able to stop and drive myself mad or something - like I used to pull stupid faces and get told that I would stay like that 'if the wind changes' - I remember not being completely sure whether the adults were having me on or not about that as well. (Looks in mirror - oh dear).

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

The only denomination of Christianity (current times) I personally know of that do not believe non-christians will go to Hell are unitarians.

Whereas most people tend to take the parts of the Bible they like and focus on those (the word of god) and pretend all the scary stuff (same word of god) isn't there.

It's there though.

I'm not wanting to argue with you about this, just say that again I'm surprised to hear these views. I expect it may be something to do with UK/USA differences too, but I imagine that if I were to stand on a street corner and ask people if they are Christian, and then if they say yes, ask if they believe that the Bible is the word of God, most of them will say no. They seem much more educated and sensible than that, not the kind of people who believe that God authors books, and knowing that the Bible (at least the New Testament, if that's what we're talking about) was written by several different human authors, fallible human authors, trying to attest to what they had witnessed in their dealings with Jesus Christ. I even imagine that a good few of them will know, or offer the information, that the 'books' were chosen out of a larger number, some of which are therefore missing...various other controversies, etc....and may have read the Essene Gospel of Peace (an amazing insight into Jesus the wilderness-activities group facilitator, BTW).

You may know much more about the different churches and their official beliefs, but I think you may be ignoring the fact that a great many liberal christians take even the tenets of their own denomination with a pinch of 21st Century maturity of thinking, knowing that there are important truths in there for them, but not fighting over every sentence like the fundies do.

Of course, the Old Testament is another big complication - the God of vengeance and jealousy and genocidal tendencies! Psycho-killer God! I think that's the one the fundies worship, actually - they call him Jesus and wait for him coming back with an AK47 to smite all the damn heathens with his psycho-killer Love! You have to feel sorry for them. Is that the kind of thing your mother believes, or was she crying for some other reason? Sorry I didn't quite understand, cylon.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

And vice versa. Somewhere in-between the extreme fundamentalists (using the same bible) and the liberal christians (using the same bible) are the general attitudes and interpretations that lead to this pervasive sense of "christian guilt".

Yes, I think that's a good point. I guess the difference is that the liberals tend to see our human 'guilt' rather as one judges the actions of a child, and this metaphor is very strong in Christ's teachings. The fall did not cause God to curse us literally and permanently, it represents the time when we gained self-consciousness and thus the ability to lie, cheat, steal and feel shame and guilt. Guilt isn't always a bad thing: ok, it can be used oppressively, but it also adds to our human responsibility to each other. Without our feeling guilty we would just be beasts, that's the point of the story of the fall.

Then there's the matter of perhaps the single most important point of Christianity - God became man in order to suffer and die as a man and thus wash our sins away. Like I say, I'm not an expert, but I take it to mean that sin is still real - i.e. we still do things that we should feel bad about, but we aren't going to hell over them anymore (traditionally: but only if we fess up in time). Modern Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness. I hardly think that a religion that teaches us to turn the other cheek has a God who damns people to eternal torment if they don't get it right - first time, second time, as many times as they need perhaps. The Christian God turns as many cheeks as are needed until we come to the fold, in a similar way that in Hinduism it doesn't matter how long you sin and waste lives, eventually, in your own time, you come to God.

But sure, these are just particular takes on Christianity that I am emphasising, and I think your point is valid that Christianity has caused a lot of unnecessary guilt and the oppressive use of guilt.

[cylon]

I think the way we're talking about it here is more thought than many believers bother to go through.

Could be a cultural thing. In the U.S. most people consider themselves "christian" but in a very vague way. Basically saying you're Christian=being a good person. When you start getting into the topic of hell and sinning, that's where you could lose them, because if you asked someone point blank "Hey do you think that kind old jewish man over there deserves to burn in hell?" They are most likely going to think no, but their bible says yes, so they just rely on "god's way is not our own" or "it's not for me to judge".

I personally know a lot about Christianity, its history, and different takes on it because I taught myself about it. To me it was a nightmare I had to figure out. I think a majority of people stop that questioning process, and just equate being a christian with being a good person and loving others. Which is totally fine. A large portion, if you showed them many things in the bible (especially in the old testament) would be repulsed. Who knew God had a thing for rape and killing infant children.

All people are different, everyone is going to have their own views on Christianity. My upbringing is from the fundamentalist, fire and brimstone variety, so it's natural that the "scary stuff" would color my view of the religion as a whole.

Having learned about its history, and knowing that the early teachers may have seen it as metaphor and symbolic, I'm more willing to see the good things that are in there. But that's only after rejecting a literal interpretation.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

For example you want a car, and you don't have one. Something is missing in your life, something you want and need. So you spend all day looking up ads, calling, asking around, talking to friends or family who might sell you one, and then one day you find a neighbor who will sell you a great working spare car at a big discount...

GAH! RESEARCH!!!! [see past Waxy posts]

I don't think I ever took, or was forced to take, the Bible literally, at least not since childhood. Yet another good thing about my upbringing.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

<snip>
Having learned about its history, and knowing that the early teachers may have seen it as metaphor and symbolic, I'm more willing to see the good things that are in there. But that's only after rejecting a literal interpretation.

Well I certainly bow to your superior studying of the subject - it's always been a blur to me. I was brought up in the Church of Holy Lip-service myself - taking lovely moral lessons where we can find them and not taking things to literally if anyone mentioned God drowning the whole of humanity apart from one family and all the animals, that kind of thing.

I'm sure it's a cultural thing - it is almost unheard of to find someone in Britain who believes that the bible is to be taken literally. They'd be gawped at with disbelief. We don't quite know how to take the USA piping fire and brimstone into people's homes on tv. It would either have about 10 viewers or there would be an outcry and we'd ban it!

It's actually quite stunning, now I think of it, how things like the story of Noah and his Ark were actually played out by me and my little friends for the entertainment of parents, before we had any critical faculties to speak of, and no-one seemed to question the point of imparting such a mythic tale of Divine Genocide. I think they'd have just thought it was a necessary moral lesson that basically just said "People long ago were very bad and now we've all learned our lesson and that's why we're very good now". I'm stunned! It's just hit me, the power of it! I want to go back in time, put my hand up and say, "So, what happened to the rest of the people on the planet, Miss? We kept our eye on Noah and the happy ending with the dove and stuff, but what about the other - what, thousands, millions - of folk who - what, ate the wrong meat on the wrong day or something? Did God just slaughter the lot of them without a moment's notice? Couldn't He have at least dropped leaflets explaining the choice: submit to my will or die you feckers! And anyway, if He made us in His supposed infinite wisdom, and then we went bad, wasn't it a bit rich taking it out on us, don't you think, Miss, eh, Miss, eh?"

Anyway, this poor old thread is groaning with sideline issues. Sorry to go off at a tangent.

@Wax Frog (or anyone) - what are 'waxies', pretty please?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

@Wax Frog (or anyone) - what are 'waxies', pretty please?

A Waxy is a delicious, delightful creature about whom we feel very affectionate. There is only one waxy that I'm aware of. It's something like a Woofie, except completely different.

[Wax Frog]

In this context, a Waxy is someone who's mind has been filled with visions of wonder since childhood, and yearns more than anything to make those visions real. Among other things, a materialist universe dooms the vast bulk of those visions to oblivion, aside from the occasional putting-to-canvas.

We Waxies collectively stick our thumbs in our ears, wiggle our fingers, and say "THRRRRRP!" to that!

Here's a quote I ran across yesterday, that perfectly sums up the "arrogant materialist" attitude for me [emphasis added]:

The social, psychological and cognitive sciences remain stuck with prescientific words and concepts. For many of us the word “soul” is as obsolete as “phlogiston,” but scientists still use such imprecise words as “consciousness,” “personality” and “ego,” not to mention “mind."

Perhaps it is time that, in science at least, “imagination” and “introspection” are remodelled or, preferably, retired. Artists can have fun with them, but the serious business of the world has moved on. (Peter Watson, “Not Written in Stone”, New Scientist (August 29, 2005, quoted at p. 119 TSB )

Well, EXCUSE us ignorant, backward right-brainers for wasting oxygen!

{{{{{Angela}}}}} - learned that shorthand on another board

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

A Waxy is a delicious, delightful creature about whom we feel very affectionate. There is only one waxy that I'm aware of. It's something like a Woofie, except completely different.

Cheers, Angie. I thought that the Waxy was refering to more than just itself when it said: "...but the informal cabal that puts itself in the public eye for the purpose (seemingly) of depressing the Waxies of the world calls itself skeptical...". I thought there must be a whole coven of 'em somewhere.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I thought there must be a whole coven of 'em somewhere.

"It" is quite confident in the existence of many like-minded, artsy (but still sharp enough to qualify for Mensa) folks who are equally irked at the attitude of the 'skeptics', and their apparent determination to 'save' as many of us as they can. I'd further expect many of those would happily, or at least with wry amusement, accept my tongue-in-cheek invite

[Angela]

Well, you know me and my whole Oneness schtick. One Waxy for All, and All Waxies for One!

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, you know me and my whole Oneness schtick. One Waxy for All, and All Waxies for One!

*Taps Angela with his squishy-thinking, credulous magic wand and dubs her a Waxy*

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

*Taps Angela with his squishy-thinking, credulous magic wand and dubs her a Waxy*

Yayyy!!!!!

And today, the 4th of July, I am going to focus on rewaxation.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yayyy!!!!!

And today, the 4th of July, I am going to focus on rewaxation.

Sounds like a plan!

[232 years later, and we're still wearing those poor Brits down ]

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I happen to be very materialist at the moment and give IMers a hard time cuz think you're all nuts, but I mean that in a nice, sceptical kind of a way!

I'm not committed to either camp, but you know which side I prefer and thus freely admit to cheering for With apologies to Billy Joel, I've decided I'd rather laugh with the winners than cry with the "ain'ts" (as in "IM ain't gonna work")

I don't care for extremists of any sort, but the Randi/Shermer/Nickell/Dawkins/Dennett/Blackmore/yada-yada-yada crowd grates me most... Broken record, I am.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Anyway, this poor old thread is groaning with sideline issues. Sorry to go off at a tangent.

Go on, admit it, you're savoring the opportunity

Originally Posted by John Freestone

What's this term 'waxy'; I don't know it.

When I heard the story behind the name "Wax Tadpole", I immediately adopted it (and later Wax Frog) as a handle and natural conversation 'ice-breaker' - a big plus for an introvert. Here's the most sensible take on it's origin I've found:

snopes.com: Bite the Wax Tadpole

[cylon]

Back on topic, I visited with my sister today and she had one of those virtual pets (it was my nephew's but she was "looking after it"), it was a virtual baby dolphin.

The dolphins just don't stop.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

[232 years later, and we're still wearing those poor Brits down ]

My word, is it that long since you kids got a place of your own? And look at you now, all grown up and everything!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

I'm not committed to either camp, but you know which side I prefer and thus freely admit to cheering for With apologies to Billy Joel, I've decided I'd rather laugh with the winners than cry with the "ain'ts" (as in "IM ain't gonna work")

If it don't work, you ain't winners!

I don't care for extremists of any sort, but the Randi/Shermer/Nickell/Dawkins/Dennett/Blackmore/yada-yada-yada crowd grates me most... Broken record, I am.

Extremists?! That's a bit extreme (actually, I don't know that much about what these people publish - Randi admittedly has a tendency to irrational rage - Blackmore seems like a very balanced woman who has spent most of her life positively trying to prove the claims of psychics and failing - she gave up in the end - hardly extreme). I've only read The Selfish Gene of Dawkins. And religionists seem a pretty extreme bunch to me.

When I heard the story behind the name "Wax Tadpole", I immediately adopted it (and later Wax Frog) as a handle and natural conversation 'ice-breaker' - a big plus for an introvert. Here's the most sensible take on it's origin I've found:

snopes.com: Bite the Wax Tadpole

Whew, at last, a sensible answer! Now that wasn't so hard was it children? That's quite funny. Thanks for the link. May your mouth rejoice!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Back on topic, I visited with my sister today and she had one of those virtual pets (it was my nephew's but she was "looking after it"), it was a virtual baby dolphin.

The dolphins just don't stop.

Yeah, it's amazing isn't it, how many dolphins you got recently. I predict you'll keep getting them for a while now, probably until you find something more interesting to have swimming about in the back of your mind. Then, as if by magic, they'll stop again, merging back into life's wallpaper.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Extremists?! That's a bit extreme!

To be fair, I understand that anyone totally opposing one's own mindset/beliefs will appear to be an extremist. I am who I am. If "their side" is right, they can have it all, without my blessings (as those are 'magical') ...

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If it don't work, you ain't winners!

In which case I refer you to my previous darkly-toned posts, and hope someone can show me the nearest exit

To elaborate, the beauty of the metaphysical-vs-material argument is that there truly can be only one winner - I seriously doubt I'll be getting a see-I-told-you-so from Mr. Freestone post-mortem

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yeah, it's amazing isn't it, how many dolphins you got recently. I predict you'll keep getting them for a while now, probably until you find something more interesting to have swimming about in the back of your mind. Then, as if by magic, they'll stop again, merging back into life's wallpaper.

I got passed on a rural northeast Wisconsin county highway today by a DeLorean. Will they merge back into life's wallpaper too?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

To elaborate, the beauty of the metaphysical-vs-material argument is that there truly can be only one winner - I seriously doubt I'll be getting a see-I-told-you-so from Mr. Freestone post-mortem

Oh Waxy, I do dislike your answer! I know it's probably something of a side issue and you have positive reasons for your beliefs. I hope so, at least. This argument does strike me as a rather 'hedge your bets' kind of spirituality. If that were all there was to it, the argument wouldn't persuade me to change. I don't want to believe in God (or magic) because it's the opportunity of a lifetime or I'm frightened to contemplate other cosmologies. I would rather believe what I believe because it makes the most rational sense (or just possibly because I feel compelled to believe it by some urgent positive intuition). I could then lie on my deathbed and, if God existed and I had not been wise enough to see Him, He would respect my commitment to truth and courage. Like in a math exam, getting the wrong answer if your working out leads to it - not brilliant, but an honest mistake. Getting the right answer with the right working out - that's best of all. Having my working out lead to a wrong answer and then just putting the answer I think teacher wants to see - that's cheating.

I should be more interested in what is good and true than what I might gain in an afterlife. If I live a life designed to get me into Heaven, I don't deserve to get there. That's the point of Heaven: it's for the true and the selfless.

[moonrambler]

Okay, nobody got jazzed about the DeLorean. Ah well! The connections just kept coming though, so I can't resist. It goes back to cylon & my having the Huey Lewis & the News coincidence. On Friday I was driving around and stopped at a store where there was a customer who looked so much like Taylor Hicks (American Idol winner) that I kept looking at him. (I'm familiar with TH because a friend is a Big Fan.) I looked at him so much that he started looking at me, but really he looked a LOT like Taylor Hicks. Then I got in the car, and a little bit later on the radio they were promoting "A Capitol Fourth" with Huey Lewis and Taylor Hicks. Har!

The next day I was listening to some sports talk show and at some point a caller mentioned the Dolphins. The talk show host started going on and on, "How did we get a Dolphins fan on here? We never talk to Dolphin fans! Dolphin fans are obnoxious! But this Dolphins fan was ok. I can't believe we let a Dolphins fan on the show!" He must've said "Dolphins" 12 times in a minute, and I was just like

That was the day I got passed by the DeLorean (the name of the car is printed big across the back so it's easy to tell). I was so surprised simply because I know it's a rare vehicle. Since Back to the Future is one of my top five favorite movies, I was immediately hearing Michael J. Fox saying, "You built a time machine?!? . . . out of a DeLorean?!?!" A few seconds later I thought, now to make this perfect, if only The Power of Love would come on the radio . . . ACK! lol -- well, I was disappointed that I didn't hear the song that day, but it was funny anyways.

I got home, and took a look at one of the magazines I had picked up that day -- a Woman's Day from 1986. It falls open to a coupon insert which has on the front "Meet the cast from Family Ties" and there's Michael J. Fox looking like he just stepped out of the time machine.

I probably wouldn't have bothered writing all this up, but then yesterday (two days later), a girlfriend called out of the blue -- this is a great friend, but we've gotten out of touch and only talk probably two or three times a year -- and she's the person I saw Back to the Future with in the theater the first time.

You guys, everything is connected, and it just flows.

[cylon]

Loved it. It's funny when he said "dolphins" repeatedly, it's like you (via the universe) is trying to hit yourself over the head with something to make sure it sticks.

Everything in your story really does flow, and that's because all of this is flowing right now. Makes me happy to read it.

[moonrambler]

I swear I am not making this up, this morning in my chick-pack e-mails (a group of girlfriends who e-mail together all the time), we had been reminiscing this past weekend about how we all met, and one of us starts talking about how she met one of her best friends in high school through being pen pals in the Huey Lewis & the News Fan Club.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I swear I am not making this up, this morning in my chick-pack e-mails (a group of girlfriends who e-mail together all the time), we had been reminiscing this past weekend about how we all met, and one of us starts talking about how she met one of her best friends in high school through being pen pals in the Huey Lewis & the News Fan Club.

Huey alert! This is so neat. I knew it was just a matter of time.

[SPARAR]

Originally Posted by dancer

I'm with Angela, Power of Now first then New Earth.

These books are completely life changing, and such simple theories too, just by altering our states of mind by the way we think by the thoughts that we think... incredible!!!

[cylon]

"Daniel was a dolphin with wide innocent eyes
We met him seven years ago in an island paradise
He used to meet us at the shore, and swim with us and laugh
And show us games and coral reefs and carry us like a raft..."

Daniel Dolphin, Free-Design song. Random iPod shuffle. I searched the iPod for "dolphin" just now... that and one other song, out of 12,000+ songs whatever it is.

Now I just need a Family Ties reference, maybe today.

[cylon]

this too

[cylon]

Moonrambler, this is for you.

20 seconds in, watch the wall