what do i call myself?

[steevolution]

if i agree with what's layed out below:

....and what else is one to be if not a 'self proclaimed' atheist?

i've never proclaimed myself an atheist, although i've been called one by the sort of people who can't live without a bin-sort version of "reality."

I think some 'self-proclaimed' Aetheists get confused with nihilism without realising it

Religion i.e., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc (not to belittle other Faiths), is a man made invention created to focus the beliefs of those who seek understanding to the things in life which we don't understand. Things like Life, Death, phenomena which we can't explain given our limited intellects. What we sometimes fail to distinguish is the difference between Religion ond our beliefs. We should also distinguish the differences between what we have been taught to believe and what we actually believe for ourselves. Islam teaches some things and Christianity teaches others. Which are we to believe? Who knows which is right or wrong? No one knows, they only believe according to what they were taught or what they believe themselves.

If someone believes in Islam as the one true faith, then anyone who has power within that religion can control the people who believe in it.

An example would be that the Pope doesn't believe in contraception. Therefore many people of the Christian faith will open themselves to unwanted pregancies and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, believing that it is the wish of God, when in fact it is the belief of a man.

Similarly, if an Islamic religious leader or figurehead such as the Ayatolah or even the secular head of a Religious state such as Iran states that God demands self-sacrifice in the form of suicide bombings is necessary, then there will always be those who are prepared to commit to such acts. Just as there are those who won't use a condom, despite the risks.

What most people fail to remember however, is that God knows all, sees all, understands all and forgives all. He was here well before Man arrived. He didn't decide to devide us, nor did he decide to set us against each other. He didn't write the Bible, nor the Koran. He accepts us all, no matter what our beliefs. He will welcome us all when we are ready to accept Him. He cares not whether we believe in Him in a certain way.

Religion was invented by man. God gave us the freedom to see things and interpret them however we see fit. Some men took advantage of this, and invented ways to control others. Religion was the method they used. The power of religion is huge. The people who are at the heads of religions are the most powerful people in the world. They can make people kill. They can make people die.

But.

There is no one in the world who can present an argument that suggests that it is God which has decided that this is the way.

Islam? Bullshit. Its man-made. Christianity? Bullshit. Man-made.

There is no "real" religion. Only what man invented to take advantage of the ignorant believers.

what do i call myself? fundamentalist atheist? ultra-orthodox atheist? isn't being an Atheist not believing in God? I would prefer to refuse to acknowledge the concept.

organized religion is all about control.

many people hunger for protection, meaning, and something that will allow them to wrap their minds around concepts that they have no chance of comprehending, like: "there are a billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, and there are a billion (innumerable?) galaxies like ours".

i just need a barconversation type label. so what is it? help me out.

ps i don't know about nihilism. i believe in anarchy tho

pss i also remember vaguely talk of establishing a religion that worshipped Deester's ass, or how she moved it... but that would be off topic... vague... unfocused.

[zeusbheld]

'spiritual anarchist' * ....

you can use it. (under license of course).

it isn't necessarily incompatible with worshipping Deester's ass, or the movements thereof. that is, until you organize...

*not calling myself this, just offiering it up up as a public service... and collecting royalties on the term. i don't call myself. i don't even have my number.

[steevolution]

'spiritual anarchist' * ....

you can use it. (under license of course).

it isn't necessarily incompatible with worshipping Deester's ass, or the movements thereof. that is, until you organize...

*not calling myself this, just offiering it up up as a public service... and collecting royalties on the term. i don't call myself. i don't even have my number.

uh, i think i'm gonna try and set this to music, see if it'll blow up some clubs. gotta be as good as "touch my bum, this is life", and that made some serious money.

[zeusbheld]

'spiritual anarchist' * ....

you can use it. (under license of course).

it isn't necessarily incompatible with worshipping Deester's ass, or the movements thereof. that is, until you organize...

*not calling myself this, just offiering it up up as a public service... and collecting royalties on the term. i don't call myself. i don't even have my number.

uh, i think i'm gonna try and set this to music, see if it'll blow up some clubs. gotta be as good as "touch my bum, this is life", and that made some serious money.

i'd say that *might* not be a fair comparison---'touch my bum' doing well might have had something to do with the quality of hindquarters on display in the clubs where it played...

[condotown]

buddhist

[bir123ing]

Sounds like you're probably an irreligionist. But you might also be agnostic.

[steevolution]

BUDDHIST can be good. used it many times. but then i'm often lumped in with the "three times round the temple will multiply the coconuts i'm allowed to touch" crowd.

IRRELIGIONIST is very good. i find it much more natural to define myself as standing against, rather than for something. and if im a gonna be AGAINST somethin, what better than religion? may i add an E? IRRELIGIONISTE? i find it just a smooch sexier.

but SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST is indeed difficult to give up. always considered myself an anarchist, but anarchy's been smeared, collected bad connotations. the "spiritual" gives it back the proper tone

SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST/ANIMIST MANIMAL is also a possibility. it just popped out. (manimalian?)

[zeusbheld]

BUDDHIST can be good. used it many times. but then i'm often lumped in with the "three times round the temple will multiply the coconuts i'm allowed to touch" crowd.

IRRELIGIONIST is very good. i find it much more natural to define myself as standing against, rather than for something. and if im a gonna be AGAINST somethin, what better than religion? may i add an E? IRRELIGIONISTE? i find it just a smooch sexier.

but SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST is indeed difficult to give up. always considered myself an anarchist, but anarchy's been smeared, collected bad connotations. the "spiritual" gives it back the proper tone

SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST/ANIMIST MANIMAL is also a possibility. it just popped out. (manimalian?)

keep in mind the distinction between anarchy and anarchism... anarchism implies you at least *want* to be peaceful...

gotta admit the three-lap buddhists got the coolest bling, though.

[steevolution]

Generally it's more interesting what other people call you.

please see my thread under Sex and Relationships, "what is a slut?" and i know from experience that identifying myself thusly only achieves a "how fine for you then." and a quick balletic turn on the balls of her feet, showing me a backside with perhaps a middle finger for garnish.

but i will contemplate this koan/conundrum.

[steevolution]

BUDDHIST can be good. used it many times. but then i'm often lumped in with the "three times round the temple will multiply the coconuts i'm allowed to touch" crowd.

IRRELIGIONIST is very good. i find it much more natural to define myself as standing against, rather than for something. and if im a gonna be AGAINST somethin, what better than religion? may i add an E? IRRELIGIONISTE? i find it just a smooch sexier.

but SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST is indeed difficult to give up. always considered myself an anarchist, but anarchy's been smeared, collected bad connotations. the "spiritual" gives it back the proper tone

SPIRITUAL ANARCHIST/ANIMIST MANIMAL is also a possibility. it just popped out. (manimalian?)

keep in mind the distinction between anarchy and anarchism... anarchism implies you at least *want* to be peaceful...

really? :? wanna b peaceful. SPIRITUAL ANARCHISMISTE then. probly haveta write it out on a card, tho.

[Kitschiguy]

if i agree with what's layed out below:

....and what else is one to be if not a 'self proclaimed' atheist?

i've never proclaimed myself an atheist, although i've been called one by the sort of people who can't live without a bin-sort version of "reality."

I think some 'self-proclaimed' Aetheists get confused with nihilism without realising it

Religion i.e., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc (not to belittle other Faiths), is a man made invention created to focus the beliefs of those who seek understanding to the things in life which we don't understand. Things like Life, Death, phenomena which we can't explain given our limited intellects. What we sometimes fail to distinguish is the difference between Religion ond our beliefs. We should also distinguish the differences between what we have been taught to believe and what we actually believe for ourselves. Islam teaches some things and Christianity teaches others. Which are we to believe? Who knows which is right or wrong? No one knows, they only believe according to what they were taught or what they believe themselves.

If someone believes in Islam as the one true faith, then anyone who has power within that religion can control the people who believe in it.

An example would be that the Pope doesn't believe in contraception. Therefore many people of the Christian faith will open themselves to unwanted pregancies and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, believing that it is the wish of God, when in fact it is the belief of a man.

Similarly, if an Islamic religious leader or figurehead such as the Ayatolah or even the secular head of a Religious state such as Iran states that God demands self-sacrifice in the form of suicide bombings is necessary, then there will always be those who are prepared to commit to such acts. Just as there are those who won't use a condom, despite the risks.

What most people fail to remember however, is that God knows all, sees all, understands all and forgives all. He was here well before Man arrived. He didn't decide to devide us, nor did he decide to set us against each other. He didn't write the Bible, nor the Koran. He accepts us all, no matter what our beliefs. He will welcome us all when we are ready to accept Him. He cares not whether we believe in Him in a certain way.

Religion was invented by man. God gave us the freedom to see things and interpret them however we see fit. Some men took advantage of this, and invented ways to control others. Religion was the method they used. The power of religion is huge. The people who are at the heads of religions are the most powerful people in the world. They can make people kill. They can make people die.

But.

There is no one in the world who can present an argument that suggests that it is God which has decided that this is the way.

Islam? Bullshit. Its man-made. Christianity? Bullshit. Man-made.

There is no "real" religion. Only what man invented to take advantage of the ignorant believers.

what do i call myself? fundamentalist atheist? ultra-orthodox atheist? isn't being an Atheist not believing in God? I would prefer to refuse to acknowledge the concept.

organized religion is all about control.

many people hunger for protection, meaning, and something that will allow them to wrap their minds around concepts that they have no chance of comprehending, like: "there are a billion stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, and there are a billion (innumerable?) galaxies like ours".

i just need a barconversation type label. so what is it? help me out.

ps i don't know about nihilism. i believe in anarchy tho

pss i also remember vaguely talk of establishing a religion that worshipped Deester's ass, or how she moved it... but that would be off topic... vague... unfocused.

Not all religions where created out of a desire to control people. Not all religions where even created to explain things we didn't understand. At some point in time, some people were content to have enough to eat and religiosity could have started as a result of this need/desire.

Actually, most religions weren't created at all. Oh no, they evolved. And they continue to do so. Even the mighty Catholic Church with all it's money, power, influence and strong men finds itself backtracking . . did I say backtracking? I meant evolving, on issues today (gasp) Interesting fact - Pagan religions like Hindu don't actually have a founder or leader. So, we can apply the who's-to-say-the-universe-actually-had-a-beginning question to religion too.

We have to look much further back than the origin of the divine religions. Even further back than paganism and Buddhism. If we look at Brahmanism or Tibet's Bon religion we can start to unravel all kinds of mysteries . . ooooohhhhhh. And when we talk about the evolution of religions we can take Bon and Tibetan Buddhism and see how Buddhism has been turned in to a religion by many definitions of the word, as opposed to a philosophy which is what it really is and how it started out. And how the Dalai Lama uses Buddhism and his influence to warp opinion and manipulate the press and also by changing rhetoric in his statements depending on the current social and political climate of neighbouring countries. One can read all about it in certain Chinese newspapers . .

I don't believe Jesus Christ wanted to control anybody, (I realise people don't talk about him in this way necessarily, I said it for effect) although it's possible he was simply a megalomaniac. Personally, I think he was a piss-head. He's a text book case. Broken home, working class, rebellious, perpetual under-achiever, tradesman father who continually bemoaned lack of union support, begrudgingly entered in to the family business when he knew that his job was to make the forgiveness of sins available to all and die to save us, delusions of grandeur. He had every opportunity to keep his mouth shut but he couldn't. He was probably half-cut when he proclaimed himself the Son of God. If he wasn't on the sauce every night then he was probably thinking up a way of shooting all of his friends . . he actually believed everything he said. It wasn't just for effect.

The law of averages states that every once in a while someone will come along with enough influence to get a lot of people excited about something. Six hundred odd years later Muhammad shows up. Although I think his poison was Afghan gold, I think it's possible he suffered from similar delusions. I also think that both Jesus and Muhammad, for all of their short comings came to do good, but politics, border disputes, ethnic minority clashes and booze/squidgy black all entered in to the equation and now the dream has long gone.

If they weren't so out of it they could have, and flippin 'eck they should have written it down. Instead of taking the easy way out and letting their drinking buddies do it for them. There couldn't be any 'interpretations' then.

[luckyphil247]

I call myself a Christian as I believe in the holy trinity .

Although my background is Roman Catholic , I dont believe they hold the exclusive rights in teaching Christianity to people .

I understand how so many people don't appreciate some Christians trying to force their religion onto others .

No one can prove nor disprove any religion , people who think they can are just ignorant and narrow minded . Its all about faith not facts . Religion is something we can never all agree on , but at least we all should have the courtesy not to push religion down anyones's throat and be tolerant to other people's beliefs including those who are Atheists .

[Katoom]

Yes yes, all very well and good but can we get back to this thing about worshiping Deesters ass please? I was kinda warming to subject at that point but I am kinda falling asleep now.

[zeusbheld]

Yes yes, all very well and good but can we get back to this thing about worshiping Deesters ass please? I was kinda warming to subject at that point but I am kinda falling asleep now.

maybe it's my obsessively biological bent but i'm willing to sign on for Bonoboism. why limit it to just one ass?

[Katoom]

Yes yes, all very well and good but can we get back to this thing about worshiping Deesters ass please? I was kinda warming to subject at that point but I am kinda falling asleep now.

maybe it's my obsessively biological bent but i'm willing to sign on for Bonoboism. why limit it to just one ass?

[steevolution]

Why are you so hungry for a label? Do you not feel complete without one? Do you need to get an iron on for your Tee shirt or what?

the t-shirt thing is a great idea!!! i'm hungry for a label caus im gonna use it to score with philosophy-of-religion type chicks!! the bars here in bkk are full of em! they're stacked up like planes over SFO (airport) when it rains (in SF --sanfrancisco).

[steevolution]

BONOBISM (the Deester Sect/splinter is based in southeast asia):

answer to ALL the World's problems :-o

[steevolution]

Not all religions where created out of a desire to control people. Not all religions where even created to explain things we didn't understand. At some point in time, some people were content to have enough to eat and religiosity could have started as a result of this need/desire.

Actually, most religions weren't created at all. Oh no, they evolved. And they continue to do so. Even the mighty Catholic Church with all it's money, power, influence and strong men finds itself backtracking . . did I say backtracking? I meant evolving, on issues today (gasp) Interesting fact - Pagan religions like Hindu don't actually have a founder or leader. So, we can apply the who's-to-say-the-universe-actually-had-a-beginning question to religion too.

We have to look much further back than the origin of the divine religions. Even further back than paganism and Buddhism. If we look at Brahmanism or Tibet's Bon religion we can start to unravel all kinds of mysteries . . ooooohhhhhh. And when we talk about the evolution of religions we can take Bon and Tibetan Buddhism and see how Buddhism has been turned in to a religion by many definitions of the word, as opposed to a philosophy which is what it really is and how it started out. And how the Dalai Lama uses Buddhism and his influence to warp opinion and manipulate the press and also by changing rhetoric in his statements depending on the current social and political climate of neighbouring countries. One can read all about it in certain Chinese newspapers . .

I don't believe Jesus Christ wanted to control anybody, (I realise people don't talk about him in this way necessarily, I said it for effect) although it's possible he was simply a megalomaniac. Personally, I think he was a piss-head. He's a text book case. Broken home, working class, rebellious, perpetual under-achiever, tradesman father who continually bemoaned lack of union support, begrudgingly entered in to the family business when he knew that his job was to make the forgiveness of sins available to all and die to save us, delusions of grandeur. He had every opportunity to keep his mouth shut but he couldn't. He was probably half-cut when he proclaimed himself the Son of God. If he wasn't on the sauce every night then he was probably thinking up a way of shooting all of his friends . . he actually believed everything he said. It wasn't just for effect.

The law of averages states that every once in a while someone will come along with enough influence to get a lot of people excited about something. Six hundred odd years later Muhammad shows up. Although I think his poison was Afghan gold, I think it's possible he suffered from similar delusions. I also think that both Jesus and Muhammad, for all of their short comings came to do good, but politics, border disputes, ethnic minority clashes and booze/squidgy black all entered in to the equation and now the dream has long gone.

If they weren't so out of it they could have, and flippin 'eck they should have written it down. Instead of taking the easy way out and letting their drinking buddies do it for them. There couldn't be any 'interpretations' then.

u lost me in the beginning, but closed strongly. good points, specially the drinkin buddies part. so ima gonna get the basics on BONOBISM down right now (also, i don't have drinkin buddies... mwaaaa). but i think oral history is better. gonna rap it... wrap the rap on BONOBOISM.