Bug

Maybe he landed on manboobs like yours. That would explain the sagging.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH Beleive!

OK, Yoga Guy. You're the Spiritual Boss. PS I grew up in Northern California, so I can smell your tired Vedic bullshit from space. You have such a narrow little perspective. Spray is a good place for you to spread your "intellectual" wings. You clearly have not read much on the broader study of religion or socio-cultural anthropology. Going to a Catholic school or living in Northern California is more like a handicap than an education on religion or spirituality. They are two extremes and both very sad examples of practice gone awry. But I fear I have hurt your feelings by spraying with the same vigor as you. Seems like I just had this happen with someone else on this board. Oh yeah! You remind me of KKKK. Perhaps he will climb with you now that you can see what you have in common.

See? You are fundamentalists. It is not in the science book, therefor it cannot be. Cheers!

Dude, how could you see anger in that post? (my god I said baby Jebus was cute!) Doesn't matter which religion is the majority its the minorities that need protecting from mob rule - Im sure youve heard that. And yes, science rules, even the Dalai Lama said his "Dharma" (Buddhist teachings) must defer to science because it is empirically based *and not anecdotally based (*my words). Myth is cool though, but we now have art, pyschology and such (although some scientists still reject psy as just another "religion") so Im not sure that religion serves much of a purpose beyond dividing people into ins and outs. In fact Im fairly certain it doesn't. But as I said some religions are better than others. For a non-theistic "religion" for instance Zen Buddhism is fairly cool but has a tendency to become rather cult like at times itself. But if its altered states and deep introspection your after nothing beats quantum Physics imo - maybe some vitamin A once and a while too Read the Tao of Physics or the Dhali Lahmma's last book. I forget the title but it is an up-to-date version of the Tao of physics except that it approaches the relationship between physics and spirituality from the spiritual side while the Tao of Physics approaches it from the side of physics. Both are pretty non-denominational as far as spirituality goes. As for acid. I don't reccommend it because I have seen people have a really hard time on it. But for me, it opened my eyes to possibilities beyond what science can currently explain. Science will get there eventually. Meanwhile, I want to keep those experiences alive and well. I have been doing so without drugs for a long time now. Tai Chi, Chi Gung, and now my first foray into Vedic disciplines, Isha Yoga. All are very focused on the relationship between physics and spirit. Master Chuan was sent here in the early nineties to show the UW Physics department some of the things he could do that physics had no way to explain (he was a Phd in physics). He rose steam off the bay by the stadium. He focused it on one spot and dissipated it. He had two strong football players try to push him over. They could not budge this small old man one inch. There is so much that is not known and is currently unknowable through pure science. Why do so many of you resist so vehemently? It seems almost like fear. Or like the way Fairweather and KKKK still hold to modern republican principles. Why does science have to be involved for you to enjoy it? Science is just one path amoung many.

Give me a fucking break. Exactly how, in any real way, are Christians in this country 'being persecuted'? Are you being denied the right to marry? Forced to have children you don't want to bear? Being denied jobs? Housing? Loans? The ability to worship as freely as you wish? Or is reading criticism on a forum full of the non-religious you willingly and actively participate in your definition of 'persecution'? Some of us would simply call it that self flagellation, which, I realize, has some religious history in itself. We hear this A LOT from the evangelicals, how persecuted they are. In the very next sentence they claim, as you have just now, that Christians are the majority in this country. Um...pretty hard to persecute a majority, unless you're South Africa or something. This schtick is nothing more than an old and tired propoganda ploy to divide US from THEM in an effort to more efficiently fleece the flock and justify the persecution Christians actively seek against other groups, such as gays, whom they feel violate the beliefs of their cult. Once again, you are posting your twisted view of religion as though you are some kind of expert. You only flagellate yourself posting such arrogant ignorance. You see, the Christians I hang out with would not go along with the accusations you insinuate in your post. Never the less, we are seen by the majority as being one of them because we are Christians. My father is an atheist and smokes cigars so that means you smoke cigars right? You are not reading anything that I post. You are just flaming irrationally.

Reread and try again. You are way off of what I said. In fact, you seem to be saying the same thing except that you bristle at the thought of being compared to religious fundamentalists who try to force their beleifs on you.

I knew a guy named Bruce Anderson who got tired of being called to see if he was "that" Bruce Anderson. He got a certification on the internet and entered his name in the phone book as Rev Bruce Anderson. He also performed the wedding ceremony for his sister. She now calls him "the polyp on the asshole of the universe." He just reminds her that she can get a divorce on the internet.

Maybe your "friends" are afraid to tell you the truth.

No arguement here. Have you written your congressional delegation? Probably better to not have yourself marked that way actually.

While there was indeed a part that was that "gist", there were also specifics as to what truely drives a spiritual person and the validity of religion in the proper context. As an added bonus, there were references to the value of "mythology" as it functioned throughout history as the library for all collective knowledge and wisdom of the respective society. The second part of your last post seems driven by anger and an unwillingness to accept democratic principles. Christianity is still the religion of the majority. If you feel it is "in your face" to have these religious displays in a government building then I would submit that you are a scientific fundamentalist. The religious displays are not intended to be denouncements of other peoples beliefs as the sign in question was. They were displays of beliefs that should be allowed as long as they do not deny the rights of others. I would invite you and the Enumclaw Church of Animal Husbandry to put up your display and see how it plays out in this democratic society. That would be entertaining. Which seems to be the purpose of news these days. But that is thread drift......

Since there is no way to prove this scientifically, I will insert an "imo" here for you. Again, there is an inability to address the topic from anything but a forced application of the negative aspects of some, or maybe even most, religious factions. A study of contemporary religious philosophy would beneefit those who choose to "fix" their own perceptions of relious beliefs and practicees on the concept as a whole. It makes no more sense to argue against outdated expressions of religion than it does to argue against outdate scientific principles. Interesting twist on an old concept. The mystics of many traditions, including christianity, expressed a "loss of self" or "nothingness" as the way to find God. The mystics were usually labelled as heritics by the fundamentalist factions of their respective religious traditions. This is off the wall. Even childish in a way. Evolution does not mean there is no God and if there is a God, it does not mean there was no evolution. Again, the study of "Mythology" as an anthropological term would make this more understandable to those who beleive in a fundamentalist approach to religion or that all religious practitioners are fundamentalists. Not all religious people act that way. Those that do are behind the curve. In the "evolution" of the study of religion and even the "academic" study of spirituality, these concepts you are presenting here are no longer relevant. It would be like trying to prove that science was bunk based on 19th century scientific principles. Never the less, I share your frustration with those religious practitioners who feel the need to prove a literal belief in ancient mythologies. It is, however, throwing the baby out with the bath water to deem these mythologies as worthless. It makes no more sense than burning all of Shakespear's works or dispensing with recorded history. The Old and New Testaments and the Quran, are brilliant works. They reflect the process of mankinds' coming to awareness as you noted above. They hold great relevance for the study of social phsycology and even personal reflection. There is a wealth of profound human experiences described in parables, analogies, allegory and untold nuances we have yet to identify. Regardless of which basecamp you are in, it is foolish to ignore the richness of the other camp. Even as we argue, we are more alike than not.

If God's plan involves me becoming a cordon bleu sandwich, then I don't want anything to do with that psycho! I am moving toward a raw food diet. It is a Vedic tradition that goes back at least three thousand years. But alas, cashew chicken at Thai Ginger just goes down so nicely. I doubt it will ever be completely off the menu. Got any sisters? I also love eggs.

The Vatican has art works worth tens of millions of dollars on every wall. Their bishops moved preists who were known pedifiles from parish to parish yet the Vatican says the Congregation has to pay the settlement that the court awarded. I have always been appalled at the pagentry and opulence of Catholic churches and ritual. Other demoninations try to be just as bad. I think they all say it is to glorify God. Meanwhile people like Mother Teresa go begging for funds. I have been a registered member of two churches. Both of them rented time in public schools to hold services. The money that was collected was spent transparently. The Pastor was paid. The rent was paid. Administrative costs and outreach programs were covered. In both cases, most of the money went to specific missions in remote areas. The missions were orphanages and medical clinics. For me, Church is where Christians meet with other Christians to plan their service to the community and share their faith with each other. There is a lot of persecution, understandably, and we need to help each other.

You will have to ask a Catholic or a fundamentalist most of those questions. They really are not questions nor assertions that I beleive to be in the same context as my beleifs. It is my understanding that God just wants you to be who you are and get to know you.

"The planet is a single organism." "The revolution is now." Perhaps in industrialized societies the revolution is now. The concept of the earth being one organism is what the native americans both north and south have been trying to tell us for a few hundered years. A shamman from the Amazon was sent to the United Nations by his peers in 1978. He was allowed to speak as his mission was clearly of no threat. He stood up and said that the world was out of balance. Man had too much power over nature and man was not using that power wisely. That the world could still heal itself if it is given a chance. And that if the world was not given a chance to heal itself soon, it would be too late.

Well I'm glad they are reunited and happy. But I get grossed out when people let their dogs lick their face. Do you know where that tongue has been in the last five minutes?

He is richest whose needs are least. -Thoreau Great sig. Reminds me of "He who is least amoung you is first before God." Hank also had some baggage he didn't claim.

The abercisor, $19.95 plus shipping. The look on her face, PRICELESS. Thanks for the socks baby.

When my grandmother was 12, both of her parents were killed in an industrial accident. There was no social or corporate support for her or her five younger siblings. They went to work cleaning houses and were soon hired by a prominent Chicago family. My great aunt once told the story of the end of prohibition. There were many long faces in the household she worked for. The family business was going to have to be totally restructured. I don't drink much anymore. A glass of cheep Merlot is just fine.

This, overall, is a very uninformed discussion. There is no distinction between "religion" and "spirituality" which are often very different experiences. There is also no expressed awareness of the colloquial "myth" as it contrasts with "mythology". This circumstance cannot help but lead to a dichotomy between "science" and religion". It serves no purpose other than to expose the values of your families of origin in a broad social-anthropological way. But you all seem so happy for once. Carry on.

friggin bible thumpers! not the devout atheists are a whole lot better. Both religions are completely based on fundamentally unsupportable assumptions. I get this a lot, but I'm not sure I understand it. For one thing, I don't know the difference between a 'devout' atheist and an atheist. It's digital: you either are one or you're not, in the same way you either believe in Santa Claus or you don't. You may be ranting, raving atheist. You may be a quiet, unassuming, respectful atheist. But you cannot be a 'devout' atheist. You can only 'devoutly' follow a practice, and atheism is simply the absence of religious practice, not a practice in itself. There's no such thing as 'devoutly' not believing in something, although you can be sure, in your own mind, that you do not believe in something. See previous Santa Claus example. For me, there is absolutely not a shred of difference between belief in either one. In fact, I've experienced more evidence of Santa Claus than God...all those presents from Santa, etc. Atheism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Atheist " redirects here. For the death metal band, see Atheist (band). Part of a series on Atheism Concepts Religion · Nontheism Antireligion · Antitheism Secular humanism Metaphysical naturalism Weak and strong atheism Implicit and explicit atheism History History of atheism Arguments Against religion · For nontheism Against god · Criticism Demographics Atheism · Irreligion Famous atheists · State atheism Discrimination and Persecution Atheism Portal · v • d • e Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.[4][5][6][7] Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[8] and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere;[10] and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god. The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[11][12] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists. Read Unfinished Man and the Imagination here . It was considered the most important work of its time in the field of the philosophy of religion. Basically, it was a treatise on the proof of atheism as a logical beleif using a brilliant combination of the works of foundational western thinkers. The author Ray L. Hart, was fired from his tenured position at Vanderbilt for publishing this book. He was an atheist for awhile there. But if you read his later books, it makes more sense as to why he became a Christian again. I studied under him when he was an athiest at the University of Montana.

Its OK as long he wasn't texting.

Me

Christianity is just another form of shammanism. I'll leave the details to your own research. The sign was offensive to me but not because of what was said or what the author beleived but because the people who put the other religous items on display did so in a positive spirit. Whether or not they are misguided is each individual's personal choice. So if the author of the sign had instead erected a replica of a famous scientific event such as a representation of evolution, it would have served the same positive purpose as the other items on display. It also would have represented a differing world view. The sign was intended to contradict what was without rather than reveal what was within. As for the religious bashing on this thread so far, it represents the bad experiences of the people who posted. I respect that and wish for you that it had not been. Religion is a very dangerous thing. Equally so for Christians if Christianity as displayed in Jesus' words is a truth from a real and living God. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Merry Christmas! oops. You don't beleive that Christ was born. Happy holidays. Oops, that would be "Holy days". Get lots of stuff!