Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Djuwenda

Atheist Boaters fellowship

Featured Posts

What you suggest may be a rationale for whether or not one WANTS god to exist but says nothing else. I don't know if there is a psychological basis for wishful thinking becoming unshakeable conviction. I don't personally feel that what I will or will not accept in the way of governance is relevant either. god either does or does not exist regardless of what I or anyone else accepts.

 

It's all personal to me. I have to accept no one else's position. Whether other people accept that is neither here nor there to me. It's the way I think other people approach their steadfast belief in a god. It's all an individual matter. I'm not seeking to disprove the existence of god. It doesn't enter the equation, for me. Whatever peoples' beliefs, it's all human and that is the way I see it. Good or bad treatment of others, if other people want to cite their religious perspective, so what. If that underpins their rotten behaviour, it is their relevance, not mine. It's all human to me, regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's real? (Google 'Brain in a Vat')...BTW,

 

The Brain in a vat argument can be dismissed using exactly the same logic that proves the brain in a vat argument.

 

Take Cypher's conversation with Smith about the taste of steak, for example.

 

It only matters that you are a brain in a vat if you know that you are a brain in a vat. It doesn't matter if there are outside forces if they never reveal themselves.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am saying that I am as sure that there is no deity as you are sure there is no tooth fairy.

 

The two things are equally nonsensical in my opinion.

 

As it is impossible to prove a negative I cannot prove that they do not exist but the complete lack of evidence leads me to conclude that I am sure that I will encounter neither in my lifetime.

 

How about after this lifetime ?

cheers.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about after this lifetime ?

cheers.gif

Dead's dead (My OH says that she's putting this on my tombstone)

 

When the heart stops and the electrical activity in the brain ceases then that will be it.

 

There is no evidence to the contrary so I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having looked at a number of paintings and portraits, his English landscape style is present, but his portraits of native people are good representations.

 

Well “The Fatal Impact” has arrived, and at first I thought my memory had been playing tricks on me, for I could not find the full page painting that I remembered – but this copy is a very early edition, and I had probably read a later edition with additional illustrations.

 

I did find the passage I dimly recalled however, and the artist referred to was Parkinson, who did not survive the voyage. His paintings were converted into engravings in Hawkesworth’s 3 volume account of Cook’s voyage in 1773. Hodge, as you said, was on the later voyage and would possibly have had exposure to the first illustrations.

 

For what it is worth, Moorehead writes:

 

So far as the world was concerned Hawkesworth was Cook and the engravings he printed were illustrations of what Cook had seen. This last was a serious aberration. It was not merely that no photographs were available – the camera was not to appear for more than half a century – but it was a question of whether or not the artists could depict what they actually saw. No one could quarrel with Parkinson’s splendid illustrations of plants – these were scientific studies especially made for Banks and the botanists – but when the European landscapist and portraitist got to work it was a different matter. The temptation to paint the idea of Tahiti rather than the reality was very strong, and it was an idea interpreted in a European manner. In the Pacific the artist had no precedent to guide him, everything was new, the light, the strange vegetation, the colour of the sea, the Polynesian face and figure, the whole menagerie of outlandish animals and birds. To see these objects accurately, to divest himself of the European attitude, to refrain from the temptation to paint a pretty composition – this was the artist’s problem if he was going to represent the Pacific without prejudice, and it is hardly surprising that the weaker brethren fell along the way so that their breadfruit trees grew up into English oaks and their Tahitian girls were transformed into nymphs surrounded by classical waterfalls in a soft English light.

 

But it was not the artists alone who, with the best of intentions, were depicting scenes that were half European and half Tahitian: the engravers of their works added their own refinements, they tended to Europeanize the originals even more;”

 

It was Moorehead also, who postulated the perceptual difficulty of things beyond one’s experience in the account of the Endeavour’s arrival in Australia, relying on Bank’s account. Moorehead relates:

 

One group of natives, about a dozen in all, went up on a rise to watch, and when the vessel’s boat came near they beckoned the sailors to come ashore. On the other hand, no notice at all seemed to be taken of the Endeavour herself. There she was, 106 feet long, with her high masts and her great sails, and when she passed within a quarter of a mile of some fishermen in four canoes they did not even bother to look up. Then when she had anchored close to shoe a naked woman carrying wood appeared with three children. ‘She often looked at the ship,’ Banks tells us, “but expressed neither surprise not concern . . .”

 

. . . “There were some interesting aspects in all this. The sight of the Endeavour had apparently meant nothing to these primitives because it was too strange, too monstrous, to be comprehended. It had appeared out of nowhere like some menacing phenomenon of nature, a waterspout or a roll of thunder, and by ignoring it or pretending to ignore it they had hoped that it would go away. As Sidney Parkinson wrote, the natives ‘were so abashed at first they took little notice of us’. But when the small boats had put out from the ship it had been another thing:”

 

In an appendix to the book, Moorehead added extra comment –

 

On the subject of the aborigines being indifferent to phenomena beyond their experience or comprehension Ludwig Leichhardt, the explorer, made an interesting statement in a lecture in Sydney in 1846. He said: ‘The natives’ ears, so sensitive to noises the origin of which they are acquainted – to the rustling of a lizard or a snake, or to the rapid start of a kangaroo-rat – did not perceive the footfalls of our horses, and we were once with our whole team near a camp of jabbering, laughing, moving natives without their being aware of our approach’.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I've looked at this thread, but seeing as it's been at the top of my 'View New Content' page for a few weeks I though I may as well see if there's anything interesting going on. I don't have time to catch up with 50 pages, can anyone summarise what's happened so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I've looked at this thread, but seeing as it's been at the top of my 'View New Content' page for a few weeks I though I may as well see if there's anything interesting going on. I don't have time to catch up with 50 pages, can anyone summarise what's happened so far?

"There is no god"

 

"Yes there is"

 

"I respect your right to believe in a creator but you are daft"

 

"I respect your right to be a non-believer but you're going to hell."

 

"No I'm not."

 

"Yes you are."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of the aborigines being indifferent to phenomena beyond their experience or comprehension Ludwig Leichhardt, the explorer, made an interesting statement in a lecture in Sydney in 1846. He said: ‘The natives’ ears, so sensitive to noises the origin of which they are acquainted – to the rustling of a lizard or a snake, or to the rapid start of a kangaroo-rat – did not perceive the footfalls of our horses, and we were once with our whole team near a camp of jabbering, laughing, moving natives without their being aware of our approach’.”

 

Interesting, but I doubt that they were unable to hear the horses, more that they did not recognise what they were, and ignored them.

 

"There is no god"

 

"Yes there is"

 

"I respect your right to believe in a creator but you are daft"

 

"I respect your right to be a non-believer but you're going to hell."

 

"No I'm not."

 

"Yes you are."

Carl has described it fairly well, Junior, although I don't remember anyone telling me that I am going to hell - where was that?

 

On the whole it has been polite - and unlike other discussions of this nature in the past hasn't suddenly been closed with no explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot from the abrahamic faiths, I was hoping for input from some less well publicised faiths..

 

Pagans? Druids? Zoroastrian? Rastafarian?

 

As a newby pagan following a druidic path all I can say is that we don't have a holy book claiming infallibility, we don't have a hierarchy, we don't have hidden riches, we don't start wars, we don't attempt to indoctrinate children (one book I read even said we don't initiate children - but I can't recall the reference).

 

I try (and often fail) to walk lightly on the earth, I respect the spirit of the land and her people.

 

Yes I recognise gods and goddesses but acknowledge that they are representations of something else - for example the changing nature of the green king from the oak king to the holly king.

 

But as a newby I'm not equipped to debate the intricacies of the path - yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl has described it fairly well, Junior, although I don't remember anyone telling me that I am going to hell - where was that?

I may have it mixed up with one of the many other threads on this topic and I'm not going back to read it through again.

 

I must stress that I have no problem with someone believing that I will spend eternity in torment burning in the fiery pits of hell as long as they don't mind that I think the very notion is daft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As a newby pagan following a druidic path all I can say is that we don't have a holy book claiming infallibility, we don't have a hierarchy, we don't have hidden riches, we don't start wars, we don't attempt to indoctrinate children (one book I read even said we don't initiate children - but I can't recall the reference).

 

I try (and often fail) to walk lightly on the earth, I respect the spirit of the land and her people.

 

Yes I recognise gods and goddesses but acknowledge that they are representations of something else - for example the changing nature of the green king from the oak king to the holly king.

 

But as a newby I'm not equipped to debate the intricacies of the path - yet

Interesting, can I ask what it is that has drawn you to this 'path'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I've looked at this thread, but seeing as it's been at the top of my 'View New Content' page for a few weeks I though I may as well see if there's anything interesting going on. I don't have time to catch up with 50 pages, can anyone summarise what's happened so far?

Me neither, but I suspect that if my knowledge of various books is up to scratch heaven will have a higher proportion of atheists in it than the atheists would like to believe and there will be more Christians in hell than they expected.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, can I ask what it is that has drawn you to this 'path'?

 

After a few decades of total disinterest in anything religious or spiritual, I guess it could be called agnosticism but I'm not sure I'd even thought enough about it to be that definite, I saw an interview with David Bellamy where he said that he wanted to be buried under a tree so that his body could nourish the tree and he imagined his grandchildren and greatgrandchildren playing in his tree (I might be inventing that bit) and it basically got me thinking about what happened after our death.

 

Although I was brought up RC I never really bought into the hierarchical thing, nor the concept of sin and it always seemed to me that Christianity was a state run religion intended purely to keep the masses in their place by promising everlasting happiness in exchange for grovelling to god's representatives on this earth and doing whatever they decided you needed to do, I knew that christianity stole the old feasts and read a bit more and was attracted to naturalist (as opposed to naturist) side of druidry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interview with David Bellamy where he said that he wanted to be buried under a tree so that his body could nourish the tree

Me too but that is, in my opinion, just common sense.

 

Much of paganism does seem to be common sense but with a spiritual slant.

 

When I was a kid I was arrested for throwing eggs at David Bellamy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After a few decades of total disinterest in anything religious or spiritual, I guess it could be called agnosticism but I'm not sure I'd even thought enough about it to be that definite, I saw an interview with David Bellamy where he said that he wanted to be buried under a tree so that his body could nourish the tree and he imagined his grandchildren and greatgrandchildren playing in his tree (I might be inventing that bit) and it basically got me thinking about what happened after our death.

 

Although I was brought up RC I never really bought into the hierarchical thing, nor the concept of sin and it always seemed to me that Christianity was a state run religion intended purely to keep the masses in their place by promising everlasting happiness in exchange for grovelling to god's representatives on this earth and doing whatever they decided you needed to do, I knew that christianity stole the old feasts and read a bit more and was attracted to naturalist (as opposed to naturist) side of druidry.

I'll declare my interest here. Although I am atheist, I was very attracted to paganism after my fact finding investigations in my late teens/ early 20s. I still am interested, in fact, you could almost say that I am a 'secular pagan', on the analogy of 'secular Jew' - who sees merits in the religion, but doesn't believe in a god.

 

What you have said that David Bellamy said seems to be natural cycle of life, death and recycling of materials. How do you differ from this? What do you think happens after death?

 

You also mention the gods and goddesses of pagan/druidic religion. I believed that these were no different to any other gods and goddesses, ie: they didn't really exist, but were a useful metaphor. To me they were an extension of the 'life force' that I had come to believe emanated from life itself. I remember trying to explain to a friend that humans can't easily communicate directly with computers, so we have Human Computer Interfaces, which allow us to communicate in a way that we can handle more easily. I explained that gods and goddesses were a HCI to 'the life force', that was created in the minds of the people who believed in them.

 

I should say that I do not believe in a life force any more, nor in any gods or goddesses, but I do still like trees.

 

What is your take on druidic/pagan gods/goddesses?

Me neither, but I suspect that if my knowledge of various books is up to scratch heaven will have a higher proportion of atheists in it than the atheists would like to believe and there will be more Christians in hell than they expected.

Interesting. Do atheists get to go to heaven? I thought the only way there was through belief.

 

From what I have been told by some believers, I'm not sure it is anywhere I would want to go.

 

I do also agree with your last sentence. I don't believe in hell, but from their behaviour, neither do a lot of christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the subject of the aborigines being indifferent to phenomena beyond their experience or comprehension Ludwig Leichhardt, the explorer, made an interesting statement in a lecture in Sydney in 1846. He said: ‘The natives’ ears, so sensitive to noises the origin of which they are acquainted – to the rustling of a lizard or a snake, or to the rapid start of a kangaroo-rat – did not perceive the footfalls of our horses, and we were once with our whole team near a camp of jabbering, laughing, moving natives without their being aware of our approach’.”

 

When you consider that some kids can't make the connection between a beef burger and a cow, it might not be too surprising the large object, that was a ship, had no reference for comparison in the minds of the islanders. It must have been fairly alarming at first.

 

Artists tend to develop styles and use particular colour palette. Without prolonged exposure to the strange, it is quite conceivable that their efforts would be stylised or fanciful. Whilst looking through the collection of paintings of Hodge, there was one called - View of the Monuments of Easter Island. It just reminded me of Salvador Dali. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you consider that some kids can't make the connection between a beef burger and a cow, it might not be too surprising the large object, that was a ship, had no reference for comparison in the minds of the islanders. It must have been fairly alarming at first.

 

Years ago, I read a book by a woman who had been able to see as a child, so her visual system developed (eyes and brain need to see things as they develop to be able to classify things - a famous experiment done many years ago with kittens had them in an environment with only vertical lines - they became unable to see horizontal lines). She had an operation in adulthood which restored her sight, but she said that from certain angles she couldn't work out what some things were, she would have to walk around them to be able to 'understand' what she was seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago, I read a book by a woman who had been able to see as a child, so her visual system developed (eyes and brain need to see things as they develop to be able to classify things - a famous experiment done many years ago with kittens had them in an environment with only vertical lines - they became unable to see horizontal lines). She had an operation in adulthood which restored her sight, but she said that from certain angles she couldn't work out what some things were, she would have to walk around them to be able to 'understand' what she was seeing.

 

 

When I was at art college, one of their mantras was - draw what you can see, not what you think you are seeing. The other thing was; you'd spend hours drawing something, something that you get very used to seeing and working on, then, someone very annoyingly says - what is it? It was a graphic design course and those kinds of reactions meant you'd completely failed an important requirement of the graphics - Communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

 

What you have said that David Bellamy said seems to be natural cycle of life, death and recycling of materials. How do you differ from this? What do you think happens after death?

 

......

 

I should say that I do not believe in a life force any more, nor in any gods or goddesses, but I do still like trees.

 

What is your take on druidic/pagan gods/goddesses?

 

I don't know what happens after death ..... I've been to past life regression sessions - and came away with nothing, but spoken to people who have firm belief that they were here before, and as I have said on here before - "their proof is their proof, I accept that it proves something for them but I will wait for my proof". I've been to spiritualist sessions where there appears to have been something communicated (but not to me) and coincidently at one, a particular medium had 'success' with the first 3 or 4 messages and then failed entirely when someone thought the next message was for them ... it wasn't obviously because I thought it was for the person I was with, who happened to miss the relevance... but hey ho none of that was proof for me - I'll wait until I get a concrete message that couldn't have been gleaned by "social engineering" or whatever the term is.

 

 

I see the gods and goddesses as a manifestation of the spirit that they represent (e.g. the holly king representing the spirit of winter) - I don't see them sitting above the clouds casting dice to decide how we fare from day to day, I don't pray to them asking for my numbers to come up in the lottery (ok, maybe I do have a little wish but more in hope than expectation - maybe if I really expected them to help they would) but I don't rule out the possibility that they exist in a different form on a different plane of existence.

 

As for trees - we need them and they are amazing hug.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg throwing at politicians:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/a-short-history-of-politicians-being-egged-in-britain#.dmalJEeLAV

 

Priest threw eggs?:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19600729&id=V9QzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wekFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5738,6772330

 

The Vicar of Hell throws eggs:

"In 1519, Bryan and Carew were sent on a diplomatic mission to Paris. He and Carew joined with the French courtiers who rode through the streets in disguise while throwing eggs and stones at commoners."

From this:

http://under-these-restless-skies.blogspot.fi/2013/09/francis-bryan-vicar-of-hell.html

 

8 month egg throwing campaign of nuisance neighbour:

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/month-egg-throwing-campaign-nuisance-neighbour/story-24597077-detail/story.html

 

Justin Bieber likes to throw eggs as well:

http://itar-tass.com/en/non-political/759085

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no god"

 

"Yes there is"

 

"I respect your right to believe in a creator but you are daft"

 

"I respect your right to be a non-believer but you're going to hell."

 

"No I'm not."

 

"Yes you are."

 

That's not my recall of this thread, especially the last 3 quotes...there's a big difference between misinterpretation and lying...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not my recall of this thread, especially the last 3 quotes...there's a big difference between misinterpretation and lying...

Not lying at all, Read my response to Catrin.

 

There's a big difference in reading on or jumping straight in with an accusation of lying.

 

I may have it mixed up with one of the many other threads on this topic and I'm not going back to read it through again.

 

I must stress that I have no problem with someone believing that I will spend eternity in torment burning in the fiery pits of hell as long as they don't mind that I think the very notion is daft.

Edited by carlt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know what happens after death ..... I've been to past life regression sessions - and came away with nothing, but spoken to people who have firm belief that they were here before, and as I have said on here before - "their proof is their proof, I accept that it proves something for them but I will wait for my proof". I've been to spiritualist sessions where there appears to have been something communicated (but not to me) and coincidently at one, a particular medium had 'success' with the first 3 or 4 messages and then failed entirely when someone thought the next message was for them ... it wasn't obviously because I thought it was for the person I was with, who happened to miss the relevance... but hey ho none of that was proof for me - I'll wait until I get a concrete message that couldn't have been gleaned by "social engineering" or whatever the term is.

 

"cold reading" is the term you are looking for. It's well understood how it works.

 

As suggested by your description they often fire out loads of different things, if they don't land, well that message is for someone else. You say that you thought that a message was for your friend, someone else thought that it was for them - this is because they use generalisations, that cover most people. Many people know a Dave, or David; or someone whose name begins with M; or who is struggling with cancer; or who had a male relative who died of a heart attack. Once they've got someone who sees a link, then they can pick up on verbal and non-verbal signals - but they don't always get it right, and become adept at covering up. I saw one woman on TV:

Medium: He died of a heart attack.

Audience Member: No, he had cancer.

Medium: Yes, I know that, but he had a heart attack at the end he tells me.

But, your choice, just go to it with open eyes, and read up how it is done before hand.

 

You say that you see the gods as manifestations of the spirit that they represent (e.g. the holly king representing the spirit of winter). I'm a bit puzzled by how that works. So, my next question is, what then is the spirit of winter? How does it exist? Is it a force or energy? Where does it come from, and how does it differ from the spirit of spring, summer or autumn? Does the spirit change suddenly from autumn to winter, or is there a gradual change?

 

I know traditionally, in folklore, there is a battle, and the old, holly king, dies, but do you see this as a reality, that there is a battle of forces around the solstice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.