Thoughts on the state of "atheist vs. theist"

sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Thoughts on the state of "atheist vs. theist"

This is troubling me, and I think it is why I keep coming back here.  I am a Christian, therefore, my arguments come from that Christian worldview.  Oftentimes I have simply reiterated a Christian point, and then, to my surprise several people attack what I have said, called me a liar, arrogant, rude, prideful, etc.  And I’m left wondering, what on earth did I say that incited so much anger?  Truth is, I am a caring person who wants to improve and make a positive impact on the world.  I love animals, I respect the earth, I think we need to take better care of it.  If I’ve harmed someone, I want to make amends, etc.  So, I honestly do not understand where your anger comes from.  Is it simply because I don't agree with you?

Taking my Christianity out of the equation, I am a person, I have opinions, I feel strongly about my opinions because they have been formed from decades of searching, thinking, turning things over in my mind.  I am no different than you, in that respect.  It just so happens that you came to different conclusions than me.  But, I can tell, you feel equally strongly about your beliefs and feel I would be better off if I were atheist.  You know that I feel you would have a richer experience in this life if you believed in God, not necessarily even the Christian God.  So, tho our opinions are different, the way we are approach each other is really not so different.  In light of that, what I do not understand is why we cannot converse like adults, hear each other’s view points, accept that we are both attempting to influence the other side with those view points, and let go of all the meanness and personal put downs?

I don’t know who here is American, but what I see happening in this country and throughout the world is deeply troubling.  There is a divide growing between the secular and religious communities, and the two need to come back to the center and start communicating better in order to make some honest compromises.  We have to live in this world together.  You are never going to eradicate the worship of God, I am never going to get everyone to see the need to worship God.  Most likely, you are not going to deconvert me, nor am I going to convert you.  So, can we, instead start listening, and refrain from judging others ideas as stupid, baseless, juvenile?

Also, I do not feel the “delusional” label you have placed on theists is going to get us anywhere positive.  I can just as easily call you delusional.  The fact is, you are not in my brain, I am not in yours.  You have not had my experiences, I have not had yours.  So, you can no more honestly judge me delusional than I can judge you.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Well, being from the bible

Well, being from the bible belt I can tell you innumerable stories about xtians that are less than flattering.  I don't dwell on them too much, because it would lead to a very dim outlook on the human race, and I happen to like being human.

No Gods, Know Peace.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:
Therefore, I will not reiterate what has already been said. Incidentally, I think that the common belief that atheists are incapable of morality is a rather harsh judgment, don't you?  Yes, some atheists can be mean.  So can Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Sorry, I have no idea why the format is so screwed up.


Speaking for myself, I realize you have emotions, are capable of being moral, etc. I never thought otherwise. As a whole, you are much harsher than those I go to church with. To be honest, it's like night and day. However, to be fair, I went to a Christian forum and they were disagreeing quite a bit. However, there weren't the same base, rude comments about people's beliefs and character, nor were they snapping back and forth with sarcasm and the like. Again, I am just sharing my observations. You can take them or leave them. But, I thought it might be helpful for you to see an outsider's opinion. As far as atheism and morality, it seems like a mixed bag, but the general consensus I am seeing on this thread is the Golden Rule is the highest moral precept, with the rest flowing from there. Personally, and this is just my opinion again--take it or leave it--but I think that the Golden Rule alone without the acknowledgement of a higher power makes for a weak overall moral framework, i.e., it's like building your house on sand rather than rocks. I think that is partly why some of the discussions here can get pretty nasty. Again, my opinion. For me, personally, I generally try not to throw out the first comment that comes to mind, but first consider it against what I understand the character of God to be (i.e., absolute truth). As I am human tho, those purely (I call them) instinctual comments still come out sometimes.

Thank you for your insights.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: .

NinjaTux wrote:

.

pariahjane wrote:
You say theists get judged harshly? Be thankful then that you are only judged 'harshly' on this forum. Atheists are judged far more harshly in the real world, Sugarfree.
Quote:
Please give examples. I'd like to know.

The best example I can think of, the constitution of the state of tennessee, until very recently, did not allow for atheists to hold public office.  On a personal level, I've been told many times that I'm going to hell.  Many of the xtians I know try to "open my heart".  Imagine if every day of your life a muslim came up to you and told you that you were going to hell, and tried to convert you islam.  That would probably piss you off (though you probably also won't admit it and say something along the lines of "i would accept his concern&quotEye-wink.  We are judged, and people attempt to make us feel inferior constantly.  We do the only thing we can, we argue and discuss.  We aren't going to force people to shut up, because we realize that the same free speech we enjoy also protects them.  We realize that to violate their rights, will lead to our rights being violated in the future.

I've lost count of the times I've been told I'm going to go to hell, or I'm a bad person, evil, etc.  I had a boss who not-so-jokingly called me a 'heathen'. 

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote:

double post


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: BGH

BGH wrote:
BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity. Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil). I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering. Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions.

Do you not understand morality is subjective? Give me ten christians and they will have ten different ideas of morality, ten different ideas of what jesus meant, and ten different ideas the most important parts of morality. Humans use empathy, altruism, society, and what they are taught in their formative years to develop what is "moral". If there was a universal morality, let's say in the bible, all christians would hold to the same moral code, which they do not.

Sugarfree, please resond to this. 

No, I happen to believe morality is absolutely not subjective. God sets moral law and it is our job to act accordingly, to as much degree as possible. But we are human, and we always fall short. The fact that we fail, oftentimes to live up to his moral authority gives the humanist the impression that morals are subjective.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:

As far as atheism and morality, it seems like a mixed bag, but the general consensus I am seeing on this thread is the Golden Rule is the highest moral precept, with the rest flowing from there. Personally, and this is just my opinion again--take it or leave it--but I think that the Golden Rule alone without the acknowledgement of a higher power makes for a weak overall moral framework, i.e., it's like building your house on sand rather than rocks.

 

How so, sugar? Precisely why does one need to believe in a higher power in order to see the worth of the golden rule? There are plentiful examples of people who profess belief in a higher power yet commit acts which we find morally objectionable.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: jce wrote: Hi

jce wrote:
jce wrote:

Hi sugarfree...me again!

I have asked you before to provide a valid, verifiable reason why you believe and I realize now I may have been asking too much. Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe? This does not mean your particular branch of Christianity because everyone has different beliefs. I am specifically asking what you believe about your God. Here are a few choices to help you get started:

  1. God is with me all of the time. He is right here now guiding my thoughts and actions.
  2. God is not with me all of the time but he watches over me and the world in general and intervenes when necessary. He is the only one that decides when it is necessary.
  3. God is not watching over us on a regular basis. He got the ball rolling with creation and then leaves it to us because he gave intelligence and expects us to use it. He is, however, in heaven and waiting for me.

Your beliefs may not fit into any of these choices so if you could provide one or two sentences similar to the ones above that describe what you believe, then it may be possible to determine why you believe it. This is not an exercise in giving up your faith; just defining it so that we can have better dialog about it.

Thanks!!

 

Sugar, I am trying to open up a dialog with you and I need your help to better understand where you are coming from....if you cannot answer this question, I can rephrase it if that helps.  Thanks! 

You didn't have to change your pic! Eye-wink

Just haven't gotten to your post yet.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Just

sugarfree wrote:
Just haven't gotten to your post yet.

 

No problem!  It is a difficult question to answer but I am truly interested in your response.  Congratulations on your pregnancy and I wish you the best of health! 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:
If there was a universal morality, let's say in the bible, all christians would hold to the same moral code, which they do not.

No, I happen to believe morality is absolutely not subjective. God sets moral law and it is our job to act accordingly, to as much degree as possible. But we are human, and we always fall short. The fact that we fail, oftentimes to live up to his moral authority gives the humanist the impression that morals are subjective.

Please explain if morality is not subjective and it comes from god, why do not all chrisitans follow the same moral code? There are some morality issues in the bible, but first I would like to hear your answer to this. You ignored it in your last post.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Notice that

NinjaTux wrote:
Notice that love god of comes first though. He's telling people to love god more than other people. So, in a dispute in which god and a human are on different sides, god wins. Do you think that this can't be abused? Do you think that nothing evil has been done in the name of god? This is not the basis for a good moral frame work. This is the basis for mental subjegation. This is the "idea' that allows people to abdicate responsibility and consequence. Especially if your brand of faith requires some kind of belief that the church is the will of god...ho ho... now we have a human institution in charge of your moral responsibility.

Wouldn't it be easier just to decide for yourself?

Your point is very well taken. Yes it can be abused. The fact that when asked what the Number ONE command is, Jesus responded with TWO, is extremely significant and important. Neither command should be taken alone. They are inextricably connected
NinjaTux wrote:
um...no if you can explain to me the inner workings of "stem cell research" I'll buy you a car...I've discussed this issue with many xtians and until I explain what misconceptions most of them have about the research itself, they don't realize they were lead astray. Explain stem cell research....because after all you can't weigh the options without knowing what the options are.

[edited for typo] 

I personally cannot explain to you the ins and outs. I know they are having difficulting getting them to do what they want without creatinng tumors and that currently they are having more luck reprogramming adult stem cells. My bigger point however is that it wise and necessary to contemplate the pros and cons of any scientific advancement, before unleashing it on the public. Then, at least we have a better idea of what we are getting into.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: My

deludedgod wrote:

My personal opinion and opinion of many others in the Christian faith is that people like Muhammad and the Mormon founder would be considered false prophets. Jesus warned us about them. He also said the devil can appear as an angel of light, meaning he can offer some of God's truth but twist it just enough to deceive. So I am more wary of religions developed after Jesus, due to what Jesus has told me to be on the look out for.

The fact that you cannot see the circular reasoning in that paragraph is very frightful.  

How is it circular, based on my view that God has revealed himself to us in specific timeline, the culmination of which was Jesus Christ? I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and as many of you stated, I cannot only pick and choose the pieces of his message that I like. I must accept his message in it's entirety. He told me to watch out for false prophets, so that is what I will do.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:  Speaking

sugarfree wrote:
 Speaking for myself, I realize you have emotions, are capable of being moral, etc. I never thought otherwise. As a whole, you are much harsher than those I go to church with. To be honest, it's like night and day. However, to be fair, I went to a Christian forum and they were disagreeing quite a bit. However, there weren't the same base, rude comments about people's beliefs and character, nor were they snapping back and forth with sarcasm and the like. Again, I am just sharing my observations. You can take them or leave them. But, I thought it might be helpful for you to see an outsider's opinion. As far as atheism and morality, it seems like a mixed bag, but the general consensus I am seeing on this thread is the Golden Rule is the highest moral precept, with the rest flowing from there. Personally, and this is just my opinion again--take it or leave it--but I think that the Golden Rule alone without the acknowledgement of a higher power makes for a weak overall moral framework, i.e., it's like building your house on sand rather than rocks. I think that is partly why some of the discussions here can get pretty nasty. Again, my opinion. For me, personally, I generally try not to throw out the first comment that comes to mind, but first consider it against what I understand the character of God to be (i.e., absolute truth). As I am human tho, those purely (I call them) instinctual comments still come out sometimes. Thank you for your insights.

I have not visited other forums so I cannot comment on the behavior of them.  I have visited places such as Atheism Sucks and I can assure you, any negativity you might perceive on this forum can easily be seen on that particular Christian forum. 

As far as the sarcasm and snapping, I don't really see much of a difference between that and how people around me behave on a daily basis.  That being said, I come from New Jersey and I understand that we don't exactly have a reputation for being friendly.  Tongue out  This is also a debate forum, and when people feel very strongly or passionately about something, sometimes tempers flare, as you have admitted yourself.  I don't think it would be fair to equate rudeness and atheism.

I'm not quite sure I understand your analogy of the house on rocks vs. sand.  Why can't one follow the golden rule or be moral without god?  Morality truly is subjective and it's based on societal norms and needs.  Think about it, it's perfectly 'moral' and justified to stone a woman to death in many Islam countries for what we would consider to be very minor infractions (if any actual infraction at all!)

If god takes life he's an indian giver


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

My personal opinion and opinion of many others in the Christian faith is that people like Muhammad and the Mormon founder would be considered false prophets. Jesus warned us about them. He also said the devil can appear as an angel of light, meaning he can offer some of God's truth but twist it just enough to deceive. So I am more wary of religions developed after Jesus, due to what Jesus has told me to be on the look out for.

The fact that you cannot see the circular reasoning in that paragraph is very frightful.

How is it circular, based on my view that God has revealed himself to us in specific timeline, the culmination of which was Jesus Christ? I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and as many of you stated, I cannot only pick and choose the pieces of his message that I like. I must accept his message in it's entirety. He told me to watch out for false prophets, so that is what I will do.

If you're trying to watch out for religions that came after Jesus, wouldn't that include Christianity?

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Hi

jce wrote:

Hi sugarfree...me again! 

I have asked you before to provide a valid, verifiable reason why you believe and I realize now I may have been asking too much.

I believe I have answered this question in other posts. I have attempted to explain it in different ways. I realize, however, my answers may not be what you are looking for. I have noticed perhaps you and others tend to simplify the Christian message. I have found that it to be rich, complex, and multi-layered. It rests on a strong foundation...God, and from there a robust moral system is built, which one can spend a lifetime learning about and using to improve oneself. But, anyway...
jce wrote:
Perhaps I should start by asking what you believe?  This does not mean your particular branch of Christianity because everyone has different beliefs.  I am specifically asking what you believe about your God.  Here are a few choices to help you get started:
This could take forever...
jce wrote:
God is with me all of the time.
Yes. I believe he is with you also, even tho you do not believe in him. 
jce wrote:
He is right here now guiding my thoughts and actions.
Yes. He can guide whether or not I ask him, but he wants me to ask because he delights in the interaction. He also works on mine (and your) behalf in ways that are unknowable to me, clearning obtacles from my path and opening up the opportunities that he feels will best serve my growth. God cares even about my littlest concerns, like when I am stuck with a programming bug and say "what in the world is wrong with my code God," he opens my eyes to see the problem.
jce wrote:
If there is anything else specific you would like to know, I am happy to oblige.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: So, if I

sugarfree wrote:
So, if I am remembering correctly, this would be utilitarianism? If I am also remembering correctly, the possible pitfall of this philosophy is the chance for a person or institution to justify evil acts because they help the greater humanity.

Utilitarianism is really more of a guide for choosing rules than individual acts, and the basic premise is that each person’s happiness counts the same so it’s very difficult to use it to justify “evil acts”. Can you give an example?

Quote:
Just for comparison's sake, I look to Jesus for my morality. When he was asked "What is the greatest commandment" he gave a two part answer, 1) love God with all your heart, 2) love your neighbor as yourself. The second part is pretty much the golden rule, however, he entwines the golden rule with the commandment to love God. I believe this is to protect against the possible damage that can occur in the purely utilitarian approach. The idea is that one must understand the moral character of God so that when one goes on to make decisions the common good, they are in line with God's character (i.e., devoid of evil).

The only difference I see there is that the religious way allows groups of people to routinely thwart the common good based on superstition.

Quote:
I think this can be applied to some of the misunderstandings/disagreements regarding stem cell research. A Christian is more likely to mull over a scientific advancement as he/she parses out the possible positives and negatives of that advancement. Given the pros and the cons, they ask themselves, tho this may help the greater good, is it acceptible to God, Is it evil? So, what you perceive as Christians dragging their feet is actually them trying to determine what is going to be best for humanity in the long run. Christians want to help humanity, but not at the risk of introducing a potentially greater evil into the world that could actually lead to greater human suffering.

 

The reason that utilitarianism would permit stem cell research is because a human blastocyst doesn’t have the ability to experience happiness or unhappiness. So if you’re talking about the suffering of the embryo, there is none.

You seem to be making a kind of slippery slope argument. The problem with slippery slope arguments in my view is that they do not address the problems or concerns of any person. They deliberately ignore the concerns and needs of the individual in question and instead offer speculation as to what may or may not happen to some heretofore unnamed and unknown individual at some future time. This in my opinion is one of least constructive courses of action available.

It’s really kind of sad because if I was terminally ill and there was a way to possibly help me, I would want people to look at the facts and make a rational decision. I wouldn’t want them to stand around trying to divine what some being that they don’t even have any proof exists thinks about it by referring to an ancient book. I mean why not just throw some bones on the ground to see what the fates have in store. It’s 2007!

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Most of us don't even

Most of us don't even believe Jesus ever actually existed. And the Jesus character in the BuyBull was far from admirable:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: God cares

sugarfree wrote:
God cares even about my littlest concerns, like when I am stuck with a programming bug and say "what in the world is wrong with my code God," he opens my eyes to see the problem.

Man this god thing you believe in is awesome! I think you are starting to win me over... I may have to convert.

Your "god" helps you with your littlest concerns, that is very appealing. I want to know more. Can you explain more? Please?

Like... was god helping you with your programming code when 32 people were being shot to death in a Virginia college? ..or helping you make dinner when a tsunami was wiping out a few small island in indonesia? ...or helping you get the kids off to school while planes were being crashed into the WTC? ...or helping you paint a room when tornados are ripping through Texas? ... or helping you watch American Idle while Louisiana was being battered by hurricanes? ...or helping you get a haircut while earthquakes are tearing Turkey apart?

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on,  and on, and on, and on, and on.

Is it not petty to claim god is helping you with your "littlest" concerns while people are dying every second? Children, grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, babies.... 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: jce

sugarfree wrote:

jce wrote:
God is with me all of the time.
Yes. I believe he is with you also, even tho you do not believe in him.
jce wrote:
He is right here now guiding my thoughts and actions.
Yes. He can guide whether or not I ask him, but he wants me to ask because he delights in the interaction. He also works on mine (and your) behalf in ways that are unknowable to me, clearning obtacles from my path and opening up the opportunities that he feels will best serve my growth. God cares even about my littlest concerns, like when I am stuck with a programming bug and say "what in the world is wrong with my code God," he opens my eyes to see the problem.

if there is anything else specific you would like to know, I am happy to oblige.

 

Thank you for your response - this helps! Yes, I do have more questions. How did you arrive at the above conclusion? I think it is fair to say you could not have arrived at it as an infant or even a small child (even if you felt this was true at the time but were unable to verbalize it). Were you raised in an environment that believes as you do now or is this something that you have concluded as an adult?


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:  Your

sugarfree wrote:

 Your point is very well taken. Yes it can be abused. The fact that when asked what the Number ONE command is, Jesus responded with TWO, is extremely significant and important. Neither command should be taken alone. They are inextricably connected

but god still trumps.  You can't have two things that can oppose each other be the basis for a moral framework.  Because invariably, there will come a time when you ahve to chose between one or the other. 

sugarfee wrote:
I personally cannot explain to you the ins and outs. I know they are having difficulting getting them to do what they want without creatinng tumors and that currently they are having more luck reprogramming adult stem cells. My bigger point however is that it wise and necessary to contemplate the pros and cons of any scientific advancement, before unleashing it on the public. Then, at least we have a better idea of what we are getting into.

but with the growing specificity of scientific advancement there is also an imparative to have an informed discussion.  I agree that science needs to have discussion about what should and should not be done, however all sides need to be informed as to what they are discussing.  The only reason that more advancement has made with  "adult stem cells" is because that's where President W has decided funding needs to go, and your options are limited with all somatic stem cells since they are pluripotent(they can only become so many things, so the possibilities for research are limited).  Whereas embryonic stem cells are considered totipotent (they can become any cell in the body). ESC's can increase the knowledge of the formation of tha human body as a whole, while most SSC's can only give rise to a specifiic subset of cells (adipose, immune...).

No Gods, Know Peace.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Mordagar wrote: sugarfree

Mordagar wrote:
sugarfree wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
You say theists get judged harshly? Be thankful then that you are only judged 'harshly' on this forum. Atheists are judged far more harshly in the real world, Sugarfree.
Please give examples. I'd like to know.

 

 

Is this you or someone you know?


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
God cares even about my littlest concerns, like when I am stuck with a programming bug and say "what in the world is wrong with my code God," he opens my eyes to see the problem.
Man this god thing you believe in is awesome!

Wow, my school's CS curriculum didn't include programming by miracle. Can you use the miracle function to reverse cryptographically secure hashing algorithms?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That reminds me of

That reminds me of something I read somewhere a while ago that God's thinking must be like "Hmm Should I help the little girl who's being raped, the 14 people being held hostage by a psychotic killer, the people about to be killed by an earthquake, or the woman who has a stain on her new dress? Well... bye bye stain! OK, now let's see, A school bus full of children about to go off a cliff? Nah! The people being tortured by a third world dictator? Nope, that might interfere with free will? The people about to be killed by a tsunami? Well, why'd I cause it in the first place? Oh no! 14 year old Suzy has a pimple and she has a date with her boyfriend tonight! Well, I can't let her date be ruined like that!"

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: You

deludedgod wrote:
You totally failed to answer my point, which was that the physcological comfort of the notion has no affect on the truth value of the proposition. My point about the abdication of human responsibility remains unanswered.
Can you ask me your question then, rewording it please?
deludedgod wrote:
This has no reflection of the truth value of the proposition. You are asking for help from something which is not there.
If you are not first willing to admit your need and your weakness, you have no hope of ever getting that need filled. Currently you do not recognize a need in yourself for God, so obviously you are going to conclude that he is not there.
deludedgod wrote:
Ultimately, you are not strong by admitting you are weak. You are weak for abdicating responsibility.
One must accept one’s own responsibility, but it is not strength to take on more than one is able.
deludedgod wrote:
If your self-sufficiency is not enough, that is your problem. It does not change the fact that there is nothing else except other people.
I’m guessing you have never been to a point in your life where you have been let down by your own abilities. I am thankful I got to that place because it allowed me to find God. It was only then that I truly recognized my need for him.
deludedgod wrote:
You are playing the worlds smallest violin.
I wish I could play violin.
deludedgod wrote:
And setting up an absurd dichotomy. If you are insufficient, turn to other people.
Yes, you can do that, and often, that is how God will work, via other people. They will bring into your life precisely what you need. However, they can not travel to the dark recesses of your mind with you. Only God can do that and soothe the fears that hide in those dark spaces.
deludedgod wrote:
What a stupid question. I am using scientific finding to challenge the notion that humans need a moral guide to be good. Scientists studying morality have pinpointed a mechanism known as plastic synapse genesis as the key. Morality is teh result of cumulative life experience.
Our bodies are machines. They house our souls, that which is eternal. The machines allow us to function in this physical realm. You are uncovering God’s design. And I will agree, it is amazing and fascinating.
deludedgod wrote:
I cannot go more than two minutes in my cognitive nueroscience class without talking about morality. The notion that it comes from a book is unscientific childish idiocy.
All righty then, don’t hold back
deludedgod wrote:
But to extract the moral truths and avoid the nasty bits would require a Van Tillian presuppositionalist doctrinal approach to morality, which is contradictory to the nature of your argument. Inherently, hermeneutics defeats itself in this regard.
You will need to repeat this in plainer English if you wish me to respond.
deludedgod wrote:
A Holy Book cannot be used as a moral source unless your moral grounding is inherently pre-established.
Please explain to me how the brain spontaneously creates morals? Even if the brains creates these morals (or figures them out or whatever) might someone have decided to write them down in a book?
deludedgod wrote:
Do you even know what axiology is? There is no evidence that humans require such assistance, certinaly not from an ancient book.
Please explain axiology and why it means we do not need to write morals down in books for future generations so that they can refer to those books rather than reinventing wheel every 100 years.
deludedgod wrote:
Firstly, this is a direct nonsequiter, a shameless one considering that you dodged my point. You abdicate your responsibility to decide for yourself right and wrong.
You, being a highly intelligent individual, probably have strong genes and your moral-maker thing in your brain is probably well-developed. Do people less talented and intelligent than you simply not get to live moral lives because you insist that must absolutely figure it all out on their own?
deludedgod wrote:
Nor is it necessary. Humans are not children. There is no evidence that men of God are more moral than men without. You are being ridiculous.
You are being obstinate.
deludedgod wrote:
No. You have never studied Western history? For 1700 years after Christ, societal jurisprudence was ghastly and unimaginable, thanks very largely to the iron grip Christendom exerted over free thought and human sanity. It was the Enlighentment that triggered the moral revolution, by destroying religion as a social structure which weilds political power. I am afraid that many believers are attempting to reverse this. We must stop it. You know that historically, whenever religion is in political power, the results are grave.
I know your bias so I cannot trust your interpretation of history. Let me ask you this one question: If, beyond a doubt, it was proven that Christ was truly the son of God, would you choose to follow him?
deludedgod wrote:
Countless. For most of history, all of them theocratic.
I have said this many times and will keep saying it, I do not believe in state sponsored religion. The US has been a great experiment reaping wonderful rewards in that regard, by allowing people to worship freely without the government stepping in and forcing adherance to one particular faith..
deludedgod wrote:
You have no excuse to be so condescending because you lack the capacity to argue against me for the ontological coherency of your belief or the notion of vitalism.
Whatever, I give! You use bigger words that me and probably have a higher IQ. But my lesser mind has still observed that in this world that knowledge can lead to pride and pride can blind.
deludedgod wrote:
Ultimately, you have failed to provide rational ontology for your belief. Spiritual truth is an incoherent concept. There are three essays I want you to read (should be on the forum somewhere) which deal with this. In the interest of rational debate please read them. Two of them were written by todangst. They are titled Supernatural is a broken concept and God is an incoherent term, and one by myself titled Ontological and Epistemilogical incoherencies and contradictions present in Classical Theology

Again, I point out that in light of your repeated argument from assertion (a standard logical fallacy) and thusly no attempt to justify the coherency of your propositions, you have no right to make such comments.

I will peruse as time permits. Not right now.
deludedgod wrote:
No. My argument was not against the books, but rather the notion of extracting morality from them, because ultimately the notion of Hermeneutics is incoherent. You should read another essay by todangst called The Self-refuting nature of Hermeneutics.
Apparently I better check-up on meriam-webster first.
deludedgod wrote:
Hah. Now I've got you. You have fallen prey to one of the most basic errors in theology regarding Hermeneutics. It is clear from that statement that I understand the theology upon which your beliefs are based better than you do, because "correct way to read scripture" is a Van Tillian doctrine which has been thoroughly discredited by a century of discourse. again, I urge you to read todangst' essay, where he iterates that point, namely that correct Hermeneutics is a false doctrine which is a slippery but contradictory attempt to escape the contradictory nature of religious scripture. Nice try.
Oh geez, so has this all been about you trying to trap me?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Nah, he wasn't trying to

Nah, he wasn't trying to trap you. You did that well enough on your own.

Take the words of Job 38:2 to heart. It's what you're doing but I don't think you see it. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Hmmm. One of the reasons I've been alternately concerned about and furious with sugarfree is I can see in her a kindred spirit. According to the work of Dr. Elaine Aron, being what some people call "overly sensitive" is a natural and genetic condition for about 20% of any given population. That includes animals. Apparently, natural selection favors sensitivity in populations. The "sensitive" are more in tune with what is happening.

I've been "overly sensitive" from birth. Noises, smells, fabrics and emotions affect me more than they seem to affect other people. I was so tuned in to the world that at times it has overwhelmed me. Part of this led to the development of some wonderful creativity and talent; part of it led to my being easily hurt.

This oversensitivity is due in large part by low levels of serotonin and naturally low levels of beta endorphin. This is nothing wrong with being "sensitive". This world needs artists. However, one who is naturally predisposed to sensitivity can learn ways to eat and live that support the serotonin and beta endorphin systems. That is what I have been learning to do for the past year and a half. It involves this...balancing blood sugar. "Sensitive" people have a more marked response to "sweet". That would be sugar, overly sweet fruits, "Splenda", alcohol. We sense the rise and fall of our blood sugar much more sharply than other folks. That's why I can have, what the doctor terms as "normal" blood sugar levels and still be shaking like a leaf and feeling like I want to throw up. The second part of the equation is beta endorphin. Some of us, for whatever reason, are born with naturally low levels of BE. As a result, we have more BE receptors. When we eat foods or engage in behaviors that spike our natural BE, we get a greater high from the BE than most people do. We like that "high" and before we know it we are engaging in behaviors, sub-consiously, that spike our BE, and therefore, we fall into any number of addictive behaviors. The key to balancing the BE system is to eventually eliminate sugar from the diet and then eliminate behaviors which cause spiking. The third piece of the puzzle is low serotonin. Low serotonin is linked to poor impulse control, ocd behaviors, (i.e., you not being able to stop seeing demons behind every bush), depression, OVER-sensitivity to stimuli, etc. We can rebuild our serotonin naturally buy adopting a certain eating pattern. Basically it is, get enough protein at every meal so tryptophan is constantly circulating in the system. Then, once a day, three hours after a meal that includes adequate protein, eat a complex carb (i.e., potato or sweet potato). This causes an insulin rise which forces competing amino acids from the brain, allowing tryptophan to cross the blood-brain barrier so that serotonin can be produced. Genetically, you are right, I am sugar sensitive and you are as well. Check out the work done by Kathleen Desmaisons.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
So, in ways I really understand where sugarfree is coming from.
I don't think you do. Low levels of these brain chemicals really screw up your thinking. It is hard to know or learn anything about God when you can't even think straight. I am thinking straighter now than ever, and I still believe in God. He has led me to these answers regarding my health and has shown me that when we sin against the food sources he supplied us with to keep us healthy, we end up unhealthy.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Part of the problem is sensitivity converts readily to anger. Ewps. I think that's a problem for me and anyone else who is unlucky enough to be born sensitive in the current American culture. We fare much better in cultures like Sweden and China, where sensitivity is more valued.
Yes, you will find it difficult to control your anger if you are having low BS, low BE, and or low serotonin. For various reasons, problems in all three can lead to volatile displays of anger. There's nothing wrong with you being sensitive. God made you that way because he needed you to be for the purpose you are here to fulfill in your life. Perhaps the non-sensitives should listen to us sensitives more because we tend to be more attuned to the truths in our own hearts, and we tend to have a keen ability to sense God and his works.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I've tried to work through some of my reactions to inner turmoil, but the sensitivity itself will not go away because I'm wired that way. When I read Dr. Aron's book, I got pissed off that sensitive people were labeled "priests." I hope that doesn't mean that we sensitive people are mostly destined to be gullible.
You are wired that way, but you can help yourself. Current culture is horrible for sugar sensitive people. We can't handle the refined carbs, all the stress. We feel like we are constantly treading water just to keep our heads above water and become easily overwhelmed. But it is not weakness, it is just our genetics. And when we learn to eat properly to support our own genetics, we become very strong, capable people, who still have an innate ability to see beauty in this world where others do not.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Dr. Aron seems to think so. She says sensitive people tend to be more "spiritual."
I think that is true and it is not a bad thing.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I only believe in "spirituality" as a function of the brain.
Don't sell yourself short Iruka.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
At least in Eastern cultures, those who are sensitive and spiritual don't necessarily have to believe in a holy book and some sky daddy. I wonder what place there is for me here in America: a sensitive person who also tries to be logical?
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that. I think, as we all have strengths and weaknesses we should listen and learn from each other, rather than immediately disregarding others truths as "ridiculous". That to me is the epitome of close-mindedness.

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Seriously, I think we should applaud her for listening to alternative views at all. A lot of Christians would have headed for the hills. Yeah, she bitched and moaned about doing just that, but here she is, back for more.

Iruka, maybe I'm here because I needed to talk to you specifically. Seriously, check out Potatoes Not Prozac and the Sugar Addicts Recovery Program by Kathleen DesMaisons. She will describe you to a tee, I guarantee it. A little light-bulb will go off and you will say Thank...the spaghetti monster...someone finally understands me!!

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Yeah, I agree that she is demanding the wrong things from our community, but she's here. I pissed and moaned and yelled and screamed when my beliefs were being questioned. I yelled louder than sugarfree, but I think my tone was similar. Eventually, some of it got through. Think about that. Smiling

You can take my words or leave the Iruka...but I sincerely hope you will at least consider...

Remind me that I decided a long time ago it's stupid to open up to theists. Geez, you'd a thunk I'd have learned by now, wouldn't you? And I take back anything I might have said to defend you. You are behaving very, very arrogantly.

Geezus H. Cheeerist on pogo stick!

Arrogant, obnoxious, delusional, emotionally-led theist, you are on your own.

And by the way, it's illegal to give medical advice if you're not a doctor. You don't know jack shit. You haven't examined me and you don't know what my diet consists of. Un-fucking-believable. I don't eat high carb meals and I don't eat sugar, period. Why? I'm diabetic. So, thank you Dr. Sugarfree for your utterly superfluous (and illegal) advice.

And if you want to understand my emotional lability where you are concerned, re-read your posts and look in the mirror. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Currently

sugarfree wrote:
Currently you do not recognize a need in yourself for God...
Describe this for me...how did do you recognize this need for a god?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: You have

deludedgod wrote:
You have no excuse to be so condescending because you lack the capacity to argue against me for the ontological coherency of your belief or the notion of vitalism.

sugarfree wrote:
Whatever, I give! You use bigger words that me and probably have a higher IQ. But my lesser mind has still observed that in this world that knowledge can lead to pride and pride can blind.

There is nothing to prevent a person from pointing out the errors of someone with a higher IQ. I think that this is just a clever tactic. The terms used in these posts i.e. hermeneutics, epistemological, presuppositionalist, are employed so frequently on these boards that after more than 300 posts you should know very well what they mean, and I suspect that you do.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
God cares even about my littlest concerns, like when I am stuck with a programming bug and say "what in the world is wrong with my code God," he opens my eyes to see the problem.

Man this god thing you believe in is awesome! I think you are starting to win me over... I may have to convert.

Your "god" helps you with your littlest concerns, that is very appealing. I want to know more. Can you explain more? Please?

Like... was god helping you with your programming code when 32 people were being shot to death in a Virginia college? ..or helping you make dinner when a tsunami was wiping out a few small island in indonesia? ...or helping you get the kids off to school while planes were being crashed into the WTC? ...or helping you paint a room when tornados are ripping through Texas? ... or helping you watch American Idle while Louisiana was being battered by hurricanes? ...or helping you get a haircut while earthquakes are tearing Turkey apart?

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Is it not petty to claim god is helping you with your "littlest" concerns while people are dying every second? Children, grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, babies....

Ohhhhhhhhhh, Sugarfreeeeeee! Are you out there?

Please respond, I would love to hear you address this. 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Remind me that I decided a long time ago it's stupid to open up to theists. Geez, you'd a thunk I'd have learned by now, wouldn't you? And I take back anything I might have said to defend you. You are behaving very, very arrogantly.

Geezus H. Cheeerist on pogo stick!

Arrogant, obnoxious, delusional, emotionally-led theist, you are on your own.

And by the way, it's illegal to give medical advice if you're not a doctor. You don't know jack shit. You haven't examined me and you don't know what my diet consists of. Un-fucking-believable. I don't eat high carb meals and I don't eat sugar, period. Why? I'm diabetic. So, thank you Dr. Sugarfree for your utterly superfluous (and illegal) advice.

 

Wow! Note to sugarfree: This was completely out of line!!  You have zero credentials to start handing out this kind of advice - well-intended or not!  I have tried to keep you focused on the reason you came here in the first place, but I am done.  This has gone way beyond you wanting to engage in civil conversation and has alternated between you crying and now giving out misguided advice.  NO THANK YOU

Iruka - I too have gotten the "over-sensitive" label. Noise, light, smells, touch (fabric) etc. To be honest I never really investigated it that much...just made adjustments around it to keep me happy. Like a divorce. Helped the noise level a lot - lol!


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Iruka Naminori

jce wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Remind me that I decided a long time ago it's stupid to open up to theists. Geez, you'd a thunk I'd have learned by now, wouldn't you? And I take back anything I might have said to defend you. You are behaving very, very arrogantly.

Geezus H. Cheeerist on pogo stick!

Arrogant, obnoxious, delusional, emotionally-led theist, you are on your own.

And by the way, it's illegal to give medical advice if you're not a doctor. You don't know jack shit. You haven't examined me and you don't know what my diet consists of. Un-fucking-believable. I don't eat high carb meals and I don't eat sugar, period. Why? I'm diabetic. So, thank you Dr. Sugarfree for your utterly superfluous (and illegal) advice.

 

Wow! Note to sugarfree: This was completely out of line!!  You have zero credentials to start handing out this kind of advice - well-intended or not!  I have tried to keep you focused on the reason you came here in the first place, but I am done.  This has gone way beyond you wanting to engage in civil conversation and has alternated between you crying and now giving out misguided advice.  NO THANK YOU

Iruka - I too have gotten the "over-sensitive" label. Noise, light, smells, touch (fabric) etc. To be honest I never really investigated it that much...just made adjustments around it to keep me happy. Like a divorce. Helped the noise level a lot - lol!

Unbelieveable. I offer you hard scientific facts and you still basically tell me to go to hell... But since hell does not exist, I should be okay.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Hmmm. One of the reasons I've been alternately concerned about and furious with sugarfree is I can see in her a kindred spirit. According to the work of Dr. Elaine Aron, being what some people call "overly sensitive" is a natural and genetic condition for about 20% of any given population. That includes animals. Apparently, natural selection favors sensitivity in populations. The "sensitive" are more in tune with what is happening.

I've been "overly sensitive" from birth. Noises, smells, fabrics and emotions affect me more than they seem to affect other people. I was so tuned in to the world that at times it has overwhelmed me. Part of this led to the development of some wonderful creativity and talent; part of it led to my being easily hurt.

This oversensitivity is due in large part by low levels of serotonin and naturally low levels of beta endorphin. This is nothing wrong with being "sensitive". This world needs artists. However, one who is naturally predisposed to sensitivity can learn ways to eat and live that support the serotonin and beta endorphin systems. That is what I have been learning to do for the past year and a half. It involves this...balancing blood sugar. "Sensitive" people have a more marked response to "sweet". That would be sugar, overly sweet fruits, "Splenda", alcohol. We sense the rise and fall of our blood sugar much more sharply than other folks. That's why I can have, what the doctor terms as "normal" blood sugar levels and still be shaking like a leaf and feeling like I want to throw up. The second part of the equation is beta endorphin. Some of us, for whatever reason, are born with naturally low levels of BE. As a result, we have more BE receptors. When we eat foods or engage in behaviors that spike our natural BE, we get a greater high from the BE than most people do. We like that "high" and before we know it we are engaging in behaviors, sub-consiously, that spike our BE, and therefore, we fall into any number of addictive behaviors. The key to balancing the BE system is to eventually eliminate sugar from the diet and then eliminate behaviors which cause spiking. The third piece of the puzzle is low serotonin. Low serotonin is linked to poor impulse control, ocd behaviors, (i.e., you not being able to stop seeing demons behind every bush), depression, OVER-sensitivity to stimuli, etc. We can rebuild our serotonin naturally buy adopting a certain eating pattern. Basically it is, get enough protein at every meal so tryptophan is constantly circulating in the system. Then, once a day, three hours after a meal that includes adequate protein, eat a complex carb (i.e., potato or sweet potato). This causes an insulin rise which forces competing amino acids from the brain, allowing tryptophan to cross the blood-brain barrier so that serotonin can be produced. Genetically, you are right, I am sugar sensitive and you are as well. Check out the work done by Kathleen Desmaisons.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
So, in ways I really understand where sugarfree is coming from.
I don't think you do. Low levels of these brain chemicals really screw up your thinking. It is hard to know or learn anything about God when you can't even think straight. I am thinking straighter now than ever, and I still believe in God. He has led me to these answers regarding my health and has shown me that when we sin against the food sources he supplied us with to keep us healthy, we end up unhealthy.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Part of the problem is sensitivity converts readily to anger. Ewps. I think that's a problem for me and anyone else who is unlucky enough to be born sensitive in the current American culture. We fare much better in cultures like Sweden and China, where sensitivity is more valued.
Yes, you will find it difficult to control your anger if you are having low BS, low BE, and or low serotonin. For various reasons, problems in all three can lead to volatile displays of anger. There's nothing wrong with you being sensitive. God made you that way because he needed you to be for the purpose you are here to fulfill in your life. Perhaps the non-sensitives should listen to us sensitives more because we tend to be more attuned to the truths in our own hearts, and we tend to have a keen ability to sense God and his works.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I've tried to work through some of my reactions to inner turmoil, but the sensitivity itself will not go away because I'm wired that way. When I read Dr. Aron's book, I got pissed off that sensitive people were labeled "priests." I hope that doesn't mean that we sensitive people are mostly destined to be gullible.
You are wired that way, but you can help yourself. Current culture is horrible for sugar sensitive people. We can't handle the refined carbs, all the stress. We feel like we are constantly treading water just to keep our heads above water and become easily overwhelmed. But it is not weakness, it is just our genetics. And when we learn to eat properly to support our own genetics, we become very strong, capable people, who still have an innate ability to see beauty in this world where others do not.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Dr. Aron seems to think so. She says sensitive people tend to be more "spiritual."
I think that is true and it is not a bad thing.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I only believe in "spirituality" as a function of the brain.
Don't sell yourself short Iruka.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
At least in Eastern cultures, those who are sensitive and spiritual don't necessarily have to believe in a holy book and some sky daddy. I wonder what place there is for me here in America: a sensitive person who also tries to be logical?
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that. I think, as we all have strengths and weaknesses we should listen and learn from each other, rather than immediately disregarding others truths as "ridiculous". That to me is the epitome of close-mindedness.

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Seriously, I think we should applaud her for listening to alternative views at all. A lot of Christians would have headed for the hills. Yeah, she bitched and moaned about doing just that, but here she is, back for more.

Iruka, maybe I'm here because I needed to talk to you specifically. Seriously, check out Potatoes Not Prozac and the Sugar Addicts Recovery Program by Kathleen DesMaisons. She will describe you to a tee, I guarantee it. A little light-bulb will go off and you will say Thank...the spaghetti monster...someone finally understands me!!

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Yeah, I agree that she is demanding the wrong things from our community, but she's here. I pissed and moaned and yelled and screamed when my beliefs were being questioned. I yelled louder than sugarfree, but I think my tone was similar. Eventually, some of it got through. Think about that. Smiling

You can take my words or leave the Iruka...but I sincerely hope you will at least consider...

Staying in a sugarfree thread over four pages long - Aggravating

Reading posts, formulating arguments, and trying to get sugarfree to respond - Highly annoying

Finally seeing Iruka rip sugarfree for this post and seeing sugarfree pwned - PRICELESS

{edited for clarity} 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree, the reason

Sugarfree, the reason people are getting upset is because you're not sticking to the topic at hand. 

You're answers are becoming a bit petulant as well.  If you're getting frustrated, say so.  I think people here are trying to make a concerted effort to keep an open dialogue with you and you're not really returning the favor.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Iruka Naminori wrote:

Hmmm. One of the reasons I've been alternately concerned about and furious with sugarfree is I can see in her a kindred spirit. According to the work of Dr. Elaine Aron, being what some people call "overly sensitive" is a natural and genetic condition for about 20% of any given population. That includes animals. Apparently, natural selection favors sensitivity in populations. The "sensitive" are more in tune with what is happening.

I've been "overly sensitive" from birth. Noises, smells, fabrics and emotions affect me more than they seem to affect other people. I was so tuned in to the world that at times it has overwhelmed me. Part of this led to the development of some wonderful creativity and talent; part of it led to my being easily hurt.

This oversensitivity is due in large part by low levels of serotonin and naturally low levels of beta endorphin. This is nothing wrong with being "sensitive". This world needs artists. However, one who is naturally predisposed to sensitivity can learn ways to eat and live that support the serotonin and beta endorphin systems. That is what I have been learning to do for the past year and a half. It involves this...balancing blood sugar. "Sensitive" people have a more marked response to "sweet". That would be sugar, overly sweet fruits, "Splenda", alcohol. We sense the rise and fall of our blood sugar much more sharply than other folks. That's why I can have, what the doctor terms as "normal" blood sugar levels and still be shaking like a leaf and feeling like I want to throw up. The second part of the equation is beta endorphin. Some of us, for whatever reason, are born with naturally low levels of BE. As a result, we have more BE receptors. When we eat foods or engage in behaviors that spike our natural BE, we get a greater high from the BE than most people do. We like that "high" and before we know it we are engaging in behaviors, sub-consiously, that spike our BE, and therefore, we fall into any number of addictive behaviors. The key to balancing the BE system is to eventually eliminate sugar from the diet and then eliminate behaviors which cause spiking. The third piece of the puzzle is low serotonin. Low serotonin is linked to poor impulse control, ocd behaviors, (i.e., you not being able to stop seeing demons behind every bush), depression, OVER-sensitivity to stimuli, etc. We can rebuild our serotonin naturally buy adopting a certain eating pattern. Basically it is, get enough protein at every meal so tryptophan is constantly circulating in the system. Then, once a day, three hours after a meal that includes adequate protein, eat a complex carb (i.e., potato or sweet potato). This causes an insulin rise which forces competing amino acids from the brain, allowing tryptophan to cross the blood-brain barrier so that serotonin can be produced. Genetically, you are right, I am sugar sensitive and you are as well. Check out the work done by Kathleen Desmaisons.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
So, in ways I really understand where sugarfree is coming from.
I don't think you do. Low levels of these brain chemicals really screw up your thinking. It is hard to know or learn anything about God when you can't even think straight. I am thinking straighter now than ever, and I still believe in God. He has led me to these answers regarding my health and has shown me that when we sin against the food sources he supplied us with to keep us healthy, we end up unhealthy.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Part of the problem is sensitivity converts readily to anger. Ewps. I think that's a problem for me and anyone else who is unlucky enough to be born sensitive in the current American culture. We fare much better in cultures like Sweden and China, where sensitivity is more valued.
Yes, you will find it difficult to control your anger if you are having low BS, low BE, and or low serotonin. For various reasons, problems in all three can lead to volatile displays of anger. There's nothing wrong with you being sensitive. God made you that way because he needed you to be for the purpose you are here to fulfill in your life. Perhaps the non-sensitives should listen to us sensitives more because we tend to be more attuned to the truths in our own hearts, and we tend to have a keen ability to sense God and his works.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I've tried to work through some of my reactions to inner turmoil, but the sensitivity itself will not go away because I'm wired that way. When I read Dr. Aron's book, I got pissed off that sensitive people were labeled "priests." I hope that doesn't mean that we sensitive people are mostly destined to be gullible.
You are wired that way, but you can help yourself. Current culture is horrible for sugar sensitive people. We can't handle the refined carbs, all the stress. We feel like we are constantly treading water just to keep our heads above water and become easily overwhelmed. But it is not weakness, it is just our genetics. And when we learn to eat properly to support our own genetics, we become very strong, capable people, who still have an innate ability to see beauty in this world where others do not.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Dr. Aron seems to think so. She says sensitive people tend to be more "spiritual."
I think that is true and it is not a bad thing.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
I only believe in "spirituality" as a function of the brain.
Don't sell yourself short Iruka.

Iruka Naminori wrote:
At least in Eastern cultures, those who are sensitive and spiritual don't necessarily have to believe in a holy book and some sky daddy. I wonder what place there is for me here in America: a sensitive person who also tries to be logical?
What I have been trying to tell everyone here is that I am different, I'm not all into the logic. I listen to my emotions as well. I use BOTH. And I do not think it is wrong to do that. I think, as we all have strengths and weaknesses we should listen and learn from each other, rather than immediately disregarding others truths as "ridiculous". That to me is the epitome of close-mindedness.

Iruka Naminori wrote:

Seriously, I think we should applaud her for listening to alternative views at all. A lot of Christians would have headed for the hills. Yeah, she bitched and moaned about doing just that, but here she is, back for more.

Iruka, maybe I'm here because I needed to talk to you specifically. Seriously, check out Potatoes Not Prozac and the Sugar Addicts Recovery Program by Kathleen DesMaisons. She will describe you to a tee, I guarantee it. A little light-bulb will go off and you will say Thank...the spaghetti monster...someone finally understands me!!

Iruka Naminori wrote:
Yeah, I agree that she is demanding the wrong things from our community, but she's here. I pissed and moaned and yelled and screamed when my beliefs were being questioned. I yelled louder than sugarfree, but I think my tone was similar. Eventually, some of it got through. Think about that. Smiling

You can take my words or leave the Iruka...but I sincerely hope you will at least consider...

Staying in a sugarfree thread over four pages long - Aggravating

Reading posts, formulating arguments, and trying to get sugarfree to respond - Highly annoying

Finally seeing Iruka rip sugarfree for this post and seeing sugarfree pwned - PRICELESS

{edited for clarity} 


See you in the next life.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane

pariahjane wrote:

Sugarfree, the reason people are getting upset is because you're not sticking to the topic at hand. 

You're answers are becoming a bit petulant as well.  If you're getting frustrated, say so.  I think people here are trying to make a concerted effort to keep an open dialogue with you and you're not really returning the favor.

Yes, my little experiment is over. And the answer is, No.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: See you in

sugarfree wrote:
See you in the next life.

Doesn't exist...

If it did I am sure we would not be in the same place, THANK DOG! 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yep, we'll be at the beer

Yep, we'll be at the beer volcano and stripper factory while she's stuck in antarctica.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: sugarfree

AiiA wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Currently you do not recognize a need in yourself for God...
Describe this for me...how did do you recognize this need for a god?

Thank you for the inquiry, but I have decided not to offer any more tidbits about myself.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
See you in the next

See you in the next life.
There's no evidence for that either. Have fun talking to yourself.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Anyone know why everything

Anyone know why everything in this thread is in italics now?


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Yes, my little experiment

Yes, my little experiment is over. And the answer is, No.

Don't be coy. You've had ONE argument. You've repeated it across THREE threads.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Sigh.  I always try to be

Sigh.  I always try to be nice and I get ignored.  Alas.

I have no idea why everything's in italics.  I also have some sort of comment on one of my posts that I definitely did not write.

And my posts are getting double posted.

Maybe it's god fucking with us.  Or maybe it's a computer glich.  I'm going for the latter. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: sugarfree

BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
See you in the next life.

Doesn't exist...

If it did I am sure we would not be in the same place, THANK DOG! 

If you take what I am going to say here as a matter of pride, so be it. Never in my life have I been treated as rudely and disrepectfully as I have on this site. And that is no whine. That is the cold hard truth based on 3 decades of experience. If this is your humanist morality in action, I feel it is ineffective in many areas. Now, as I do not wish to sin on your account any longer, I must refrain from speaking to you again.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Sigh. I

pariahjane wrote:
Sigh. I always try to be nice and I get ignored. Alas.

I have no idea why everything's in italics. I also have some sort of comment on one of my posts that I definitely did not write.

And my posts are getting double posted.

Maybe it's god fucking with us. Or maybe it's a computer glich. I'm going for the latter.

Sugar ignores everyone from time to time. We still love you though. 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, your morals don't

Yeah, your morals don't allow rudeness. Just massive intellectual dishonesty.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: BGH

sugarfree wrote:
BGH wrote:

sugarfree wrote:
See you in the next life.

Doesn't exist...

If it did I am sure we would not be in the same place, THANK DOG! 

If you take what I am going to say here as a matter of pride, so be it. Never in my life have I been treated as rudely and disrepectfully as I have on this site. And that is no whine. That is the cold hard truth based on 3 decades of experience. If this is your humanist morality in action, I feel it is ineffective in many areas. Now, as I do not wish to sin on your account any longer, I must refrain from speaking to you again.

I think you're just picking and choosing what to be offended by.  I've been very nice to you and you pretty much ignored that.  I'm pretty sure there are other people on this thread who have been quite polite to you but you're focusing on people being rude.  You insult and offend people, Sugarfree, and you don't even realize it.  That's why it's so frustrating.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: pariahjane

BGH wrote:
pariahjane wrote:
Sigh. I always try to be nice and I get ignored. Alas.

I have no idea why everything's in italics. I also have some sort of comment on one of my posts that I definitely did not write.

And my posts are getting double posted.

Maybe it's god fucking with us. Or maybe it's a computer glich. I'm going for the latter.

Sugar ignores everyone from time to time. We still love you though. 

 

Aww, shucks.  Thanks!  Laughing

If god takes life he's an indian giver


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
Unbelieveable. I offer you hard scientific facts and you still basically tell me to go to hell... But since hell does not exist, I should be okay.

 

WHAT fucking hard scientific facts have you offered?  Where the fuck are they?  You are hypocritical, arrogant and full of yourself!  You have betrayed everyone's trust and lost any and all respect.  You act like a child...no, that is not quite true since I can have rational discussions with children.  You act like a spoiled brat!!  Have a nice love affair with God.  Planning to name the baby Jesus?? 


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Sigh. 

pariahjane wrote:

Sigh.  I always try to be nice and I get ignored.  Alas.

I have no idea why everything's in italics.  I also have some sort of comment on one of my posts that I definitely did not write.

And my posts are getting double posted.

Maybe it's god fucking with us.  Or maybe it's a computer glich.  I'm going for the latter. 


I have noted that you are polite, nice, respectful, etc. I am not lumping you in with the comment I just made to BGH about the atmosphere on this site. I think many of the people here are doing a great disservice to your worldview. However, I repect you and your right to believe what you do. Thanks for not tearing off any of my flesh.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: If you

sugarfree wrote:
If you take what I am going to say here as a matter of pride, so be it. Never in my life have I been treated as rudely and disrepectfully as I have on this site. And that is no whine. That is the cold hard truth based on 3 decades of experience. If this is your humanist morality in action, I feel it is ineffective in many areas. Now, as I do not wish to sin on your account any longer, I must refrain from speaking to you again.

Sadly for you, I have found out, on this site you get what you give from most people. Posters take a lot of time refuting your agruments and formulating their responses, and you see fit to just ignore them. That is not respect, you will not get repect from me if you treat me without any. I ask you questions and I am serious, you take affront to my tone and proceed to bitch and whine, get over yourself. We all get offended from time to time, but you refuse to give the atheists here any respect whatsoever with your arguments from emotion. We are trying to have a debate, respond to the arguments a stop giving illegal medical advice!!


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate your response

I appreciate your response to my post, Sugarfree, thank you.

I'm trying to consider this thread from your position.  Perhaps you are getting a little defensive because it really is many to one.  Meaning, you are really the only theist posting on this thread but you have many atheists questioning and challenging you at the same time.  Perhaps you aren't able to give each post it's proper consideration?  I could see, I suppose, why you might feel attacked. 

However, BGH is right that it does take an awful long time for people to post these, as I'm sure it does you.  People get very annoyed because you do avoid certain posts and answer others.  It also seems to me that you're not really taking what the other people are saying into consideration.  Meaning, you have to think outside of your box a little.  If you don't know what something means, look it up first.  If you don't understand after that, then tell us.  The more frustrated everyone gets, the more... rough the thread becomes. 

That being said, I hate to tell you but you do need to get a bit of a thicker skin.  Remember, debating isn't about emotion, it is about fact and logic.  The more you batter us and tell us how mean we are being to you, the more annoyed everyone is going to get. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver