The Energon Pub

DesalationReborn wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote: Many, like you, OR, seem to let your own opinions rule take precident over projected beliefs, a usually healthier standpoint, where as many others let their Christian beliefs rule over themselves, constantly judging

I'm judgmental?

Perhaps. Regardless, I don't have a signature condemning the religious preference of 1.3 billion people. Nor have condemned people here for being non-believers, or sinners; I have, however, played hardball with people who haven't gotten their facts straight, or made excuses, or failed to do any research into the religion they're condemning.

I might occasionally jump to conclusions, but this street goes both ways.

I was boxing in 2 schools of thought-- you were in the 1st, and the "judgers" were in the latter.

For clarity...
Camp #1 (Pretty Healthily-minded):"own opinions take precident over projected beliefs"

You define your own morals. You're the master of your thoughts.

Camp #2 (Problematic): "let their Christian beliefs rule over themselves, constantly judging themselves as worthless sinners, constantly repremanding while trying to fit into a role they were not meant to instead of seeking fufillment on their own terms"

Projected morals define them. They're "slaves."

That's essentially Neizstche's master-slave morality, abiet severly watered down.

EDIT: And sorry, I did have a confusing grammar error in that last post.

Then going by your own words, our young self-proclaimed Satanist is a slave to religion. After all, his signature and avatar suggest that his current religious beliefs are a reaction to a mainstream religion; thus, he's still defined by that mainstream religion, and thus, a slave.

Pretty much depends on his motivations-- whether it is for the justification of himself or in reaction to an outside will. Satanism in itself strives for self-fufillment as it's utmost goal, so it's likely the former, but maybe the later. I have similar thoughts and would actually join the Church of Satan if I wasn't opposed to a binding affiliation to a certain group. I like to course to my own beat.

I'd note as well that technically Satanism, the Church of Satan, is not a religion. Although they revere Satan as a literary figure and the embodiment of the mainstream Western religion's demonization of individualistic drive, they acknowledge no god other than the "god" of the self and the strive for one's own fulfillment. In that way, it is more a philosophy, like the Eastern conceptions of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confusism.

And I will disagree with you on that conjecture.

The very precept of Satanism--indeed, the name itself--identifies itself as an antithesis to Christianity. Hence, it is a reactionary movement, rather that a progressive identity. By Nietzsche's standards, it is still bound in slavery.

Despite what Satanists claim, the ideals of Satanism emerged directly out of Christianity (living for the self, rather than the whole, etc); and such, their movement will always be deemed as purely reactionary.

Let me get back to you on the second part of your post after I've done a little reading; however, I will go so far as to disagree with you on the philosophy of Satanism; whereas Satanisim celebrates the self, most other world religions advocate the collective.

Operation Ravage wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:

Operation Ravage wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote: Many, like you, OR, seem to let your own opinions rule take precident over projected beliefs, a usually healthier standpoint, where as many others let their Christian beliefs rule over themselves, constantly judging

I'm judgmental?

Perhaps. Regardless, I don't have a signature condemning the religious preference of 1.3 billion people. Nor have condemned people here for being non-believers, or sinners; I have, however, played hardball with people who haven't gotten their facts straight, or made excuses, or failed to do any research into the religion they're condemning.

I might occasionally jump to conclusions, but this street goes both ways.

I was boxing in 2 schools of thought-- you were in the 1st, and the "judgers" were in the latter.

For clarity...
Camp #1 (Pretty Healthily-minded):"own opinions take precident over projected beliefs"

You define your own morals. You're the master of your thoughts.

Camp #2 (Problematic): "let their Christian beliefs rule over themselves, constantly judging themselves as worthless sinners, constantly repremanding while trying to fit into a role they were not meant to instead of seeking fufillment on their own terms"

Projected morals define them. They're "slaves."

That's essentially Neizstche's master-slave morality, abiet severly watered down.

EDIT: And sorry, I did have a confusing grammar error in that last post.

Then going by your own words, our young self-proclaimed Satanist is a slave to religion. After all, his signature and avatar suggest that his current religious beliefs are a reaction to a mainstream religion; thus, he's still defined by that mainstream religion, and thus, a slave.

Pretty much depends on his motivations-- whether it is for the justification of himself or in reaction to an outside will. Satanism in itself strives for self-fufillment as it's utmost goal, so it's likely the former, but maybe the later. I have similar thoughts and would actually join the Church of Satan if I wasn't opposed to a binding affiliation to a certain group. I like to course to my own beat.

I'd note as well that technically Satanism, the Church of Satan, is not a religion. Although they revere Satan as a literary figure and the embodiment of the mainstream Western religion's demonization of individualistic drive, they acknowledge no god other than the "god" of the self and the strive for one's own fulfillment. In that way, it is more a philosophy, like the Eastern conceptions of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confusism.

And I will disagree with you on that conjecture.

The very precept of Satanism--indeed, the name itself--identifies itself as an antithesis to Christianity. Hence, it is a reactionary movement, rather that a progressive identity. By Nietzsche's standards, it is still bound in slavery.

Despite what Satanists claim, the ideals of Satanism emerged directly out of Christianity (living for the self, rather than the whole, etc); and such, their movement will always be deemed as purely reactionary.

Let me get back to you on the second part of your post after I've done a little reading; however, I will go so far as to disagree with you on the philosophy of Satanism; whereas Satanisim celebrates the self, most other world religions advocate the collective.

I can get into the discussion of Neizstche later-- admittedly it is too deep to discribe in the amount of verbiage I'm willing to put into a post-- I've been getting lazy-- but both classes allow for reaction to opposing ideals. In the end, it is not truely the reactionary aspect, for both allow that, but the basing of one's one values on either the progression to self-fufillment, or those brought onto the self by reaction to the strong or by outside opinion of the majority. Wikipedia provides an accurate, though brief, idea.

As well, to describe briefly Buddism celebrates the struggle of one to come to terms with one's self, while Taoism also has to do with one's reflection on nature to achieve balance of the self, but you're right with Confusism-- it deals with direct subjection to authority. However, the search for fufillment of the self does not edit out communion with or service to others as a desire for happiness.

so, he wasn't a zombie after all?

Grendel wrote:so, he wasn't a zombie after all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chB7ifrYBnE

WOW! Desalation Reborn makes valid assessments and you guys jump down his throat, but Grendel equates your savior to a zombie and you sit there and take it. Even I am a little disappointed in that move. I mean, here's this guy just tells you he thought of Jesus as an undead servant of darkness who feeds on brains so sustain movement, and you do nothing.WOW!!
I mean there's one who is trying to sway judgement, but another should be pure blasphemy in the minds of the faithful.

DISCHARGE wrote:WOW! Desalation Reborn makes valid assessments and you guys jump down his throat, but Grendel equates your savior to a zombie and you sit there and take it. Even I am a little disappointed in that move. I mean, here's this guy just tells you he thought of Jesus as an undead servant of darkness who feeds on brains so sustain movement, and you do nothing.WOW!!
I mean there's one who is trying to sway judgement, but another should be pure blasphemy in the minds of the faithful.

Are you implying that Jesus sustains himself in the world by a method other then destroying brains?

Jesus is not alive in a physical sense where as a zombie would have to be in order to sustain itself. Brains and minds are metaphysically two completely different objects. The mind IS affected by the concept of Jesus Christ. The brain is eaten by zombies. I think if people perceived Jesus as a mindless abomination who's only purpose was to walk the terrain and consume brains, the whole concept of worshiping the god Jesus promoted would be horrifying. It's one thing to dispute the original purpose of this thread as one side says "Yes, these are Jesus' remain." or "There is no way these are His remains."
But there is a level of respect that should be upheld and referring to ones savior as an undead slathering beast is uncalled for. I can conceptualize what would ramp up a fanatic to the point of breaking. That, for Catholics or any Christians,if said in person may as well be one of those instances.

I've never heard of anyone who used the term "zombie Jesus" in any context that wasn't a) comedic, b) awesome or c) both.

It's akin to "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" or the 1980s Japanese toy "GOD-JESUS"* which was a robot brandishing a Christian cross. Technically blasphemous but too great for it to really matter.


*By the way, don't do a Google** picture search for this. Seriously. I have no idea if you can find an image of the product, but I kind of stopped looking after the first image of a dismembered infant corpse appeared.

**I almost mistyped this as "Goodle". Freudian slip or brilliant name for a Christian search engine? You decide!

yeah, the family guy episode's were i first heard of zombie-jesus lol. since then i've used it to rationalize making x-mas and easter invole more zombies, actually, I try making every holiday involve zombies....

and goodle, prolly would be real popular with the god-set, you might be on to something...


And zombies are servants of darkness? zombies are servants of anything? come on, they just want a little love! and brains.

DISCHARGE wrote:Jesus is not alive in a physical sense where as a zombie would have to be in order to sustain itself. Brains and minds are metaphysically two completely different objects. The mind IS affected by the concept of Jesus Christ. The brain is eaten by zombies. I think if people perceived Jesus as a mindless abomination who's only purpose was to walk the terrain and consume brains, the whole concept of worshiping the god Jesus promoted would be horrifying. It's one thing to dispute the original purpose of this thread as one side says "Yes, these are Jesus' remain." or "There is no way these are His remains."
But there is a level of respect that should be upheld and referring to ones savior as an undead slathering beast is uncalled for. I can conceptualize what would ramp up a fanatic to the point of breaking. That, for Catholics or any Christians,if said in person may as well be one of those instances.

It already is horrifying if you think about it properly. People worship Jesus as being some sort of saviour since he was brutally killed for the sake of everybody else. Basically christians worship a god that accepts (or even demands?) human sacrifice and scapegoats.

Kjell wrote:It's akin to "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" or the 1980s Japanese toy "GOD-JESUS"* which was a robot brandishing a Christian cross. Technically blasphemous but too great for it to really matter.

I want one.

High Command wrote:It already is horrifying if you think about it properly. People worship Jesus as being some sort of saviour since he was brutally killed for the sake of everybody else. Basically christians worship a god that accepts (or even demands?) human sacrifice and scapegoats.

He supposedly was a god that came down to earth... for himself...
to save mankind from... himself...
and sacrificed himself to... himself...
to give us forgiveness from... himself...
to save us from eternal punishment by... himself...
as a punishment for something done by... our ancestors...
from flaws inherently created by and known of by him.

Yep, it's weird if you actually consider it, but people will always be inclined to believe what keeps them emotionally sated and in line with the majority, even if it defies simple logic.

I personally adhire to, as Carl Sagan once said, the idea that "it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

James Cameron wrote:"I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary film maker."

Because everybody knows Aliens, and Terminator were really documentaries.

Anyway, the whole situation is hilarious and yet intreguing(sp? been off since I've been sick)

I'm not a big believer in the Bible, I prefer the old Gods myself, Zeus, and the like, who didn't try to say they were perfect, just powerful.

But the whole "we found Jesus's" remains bit, when every scientific expert kinda points and laughs, has to tell you something. Did Jesus exist, sure, are his bones just buried in some random tomb? Hell no. It's common sense. JFK's brain wasn't buried with his body, it was kept. If we do that for a president, why would anyone just bury the supposed Messiah in a regular old tomb, and not have his bones slapped in a vault at the vatican or something like that.

They kept his brain? What for?

Kjell wrote:They kept his brain? What for?

I dunno, testing, to hide whoever killed JFK. All I know is that Kennedy's brain is not with his body. If it was, I'm sure we'd know who infact killed Kennedy.

So what are we debating here? Have you people ever thought that life may be a test? Have you ever been reasonable enough to know you are never going to know everything and when you even find out about certain things that maybe you werent supposed to, that you will never understand it? So if you know you will never understand nor know everything why do you need to know this. Even if that was jesus' body, what is that going to prove to you other then bodies that walk on this earth dont last forever. Think of your body as a biological machine with many lines of code for how complicated it is. The reason why I think life is a test is because your body begins and ends, much like a test starting and ending. And maybe finding jesus' body is part of mankinds test of faith in the christianity religion. Does it acctually say in a christian bible that jesus' body is supposed to assend or dissapear or whatever it was supposed to do after it (his body, as I think you are not your body) was sacrificed. What are we debating here? Atheists, I always wanted to ask this question, tell me exactly scientificaly how your body works and makes it work. What makes it start and what makes it stop and what powers it because I dont think I have a chord hanging out my butt. Enlighten me anybody who thinks they can answer this question. I bet nobody on this planet can answer this question 100% accurately, and you know what, I would be right.

Wow.

What makes it start? Conception, I guess. You get the human equivalent to a lump of dough that then eventually becomes a human infant. That infant then, well, grows some more and learns and further develops a personality. There's a lot written about this. More's in the works, too, I'm sure.

What powers it? A large amount of chemical reactions in an equally large amount of cells. We get the power for that from our diets. Oxygen is a big fuel source for vital organs as well. Again, there's a lot written about this.

What ends it? Unless you are subjected to extreme violence or a nasty microorganism the body pretty much breaks down due to wear. Something about bits in the DNA wearing down so cells don't replicate as well. Not sure how many books there are about this but you can probably find a suitably thick one with impressively small text.


Honestly it was a little while since I read about this sort of thing. If you go down to your local library and ask a librarian you'll most likely find plenty of books that describe the general workings of the human body. It's one of the easier things to study, after all!

GooberTron wrote:So what are we debating here? Have you people ever thought that life may be a test? Have you ever been reasonable enough to know you are never going to know everything and when you even find out about certain things that maybe you werent supposed to, that you will never understand it? So if you know you will never understand nor know everything why do you need to know this. Even if that was jesus' body, what is that going to prove to you other then bodies that walk on this earth dont last forever. Think of your body as a biological machine with many lines of code for how complicated it is. The reason why I think life is a test is because your body begins and ends, much like a test starting and ending. And maybe finding jesus' body is part of mankinds test of faith in the christianity religion. Does it acctually say in a christian bible that jesus' body is supposed to assend or dissapear or whatever it was supposed to do after it (his body, as I think you are not your body) was sacrificed. What are we debating here? Atheists, I always wanted to ask this question, tell me exactly scientificaly how your body works and makes it work. What makes it start and what makes it stop and what powers it because I dont think I have a chord hanging out my butt. Enlighten me anybody who thinks they can answer this question. I bet nobody on this planet can answer this question 100% accurately, and you know what, I would be right.

So, if life is a test. Why would it be about Christian faith? Why wouldn't it be a test on how good of a person you are.

I can't remember the exact little line, as the book was boring as hell, but I know in there it says you don't have to be Christian to go to heaven, you just have to be a good person.

So why is it suddenly a test of faith in Christianity?

The funniest thing that gets me about Christianity. It's the gospel of God and Jesus, as told to us by 12 different people, correct? "God says do this, good, now do this, uh-uh! God didn't say!" It's hearsay in the best form. Do we know this is actually what God said? It's like those stories of you catching a fish, every time it's told, the fish gets a little bigger.

Anyway, we'll never know whats going on for sure until we're dead. So why put faith into a dusty old book as legit teachings of some omnipotent being? Why not just live a good life. If God, Odin, Zeus, or whoever actually exists, I'll find out when I'm dead, you will too.

Also, we know, 100% how the body works scientifically. What we don't know, is what the "soul" is, that makes us who we are. We know what powers it, bio-electricity controlled through our brain, and powered by the food we eat, which is broken down. How the body works, is like 3rd grade stuff. Now, what the soul is on the other hand, thats the true question.

GooberTron wrote:Atheists, I always wanted to ask this question, tell me exactly scientificaly how your body works and makes it work.

May I recommend you go and read a medical text book as a good starting place. If you want to understand how the body works in even greater detail you could even train to be a doctor.

What makes it start

Fertilisation.

and what makes it stop

Brain death and cessation of the bodies vital functions.

and what powers it

Adenosine triphosphate.

because I dont think I have a chord hanging out my butt.

However you used to have one sticking out of the front of your abdomen. It was removed right after birth and left a scar called a navel (aka belly button or umbilicus).

Enlighten me anybody who thinks they can answer this question. I bet nobody on this planet can answer this question 100% accurately, and you know what, I would be right.

How did I do?

GooberTron wrote:because I dont think I have a chord hanging out my butt. Enlighten me anybody who thinks they can answer this question.

Gawd, and these are the types of people who create aethiests, know nothing ignorant types. HUMANS ARE OF THE SAME BRANCH OF APES, APES DO NOT HAVE TAILS, MONKEYS ARE OF A BRANCH EVEN EARLIER. APES NEED NOT TAILS AS WE LIVE ON THE GROUND OR HANG BY ARMS OR LEGS.

I swear, the next person who says " Evolution says we are monkies!!!" will get it personaly from me, RIGHT IN THE KISSER.

I am a deist, I do not believe Jesus araised or was the messiah, I believe he was a good man who said he died for your sins so you do not fear death and the punishment god may bistow onto you. If whatever this guy discovered makes you doubt your faith, you weren't very christian in the first place.

Also about the earlier "Why don't they attack Islam or Judism?" Those islam are more "RACIEST!!!" screamers than christianity, as Christianity has the logic Religion=/=Race and the jews have coped enough crap.

I dont know I think the guy has got a point. I mean yea all those things that you guys posted sounds like you did your homework. But as most machines work there is a chemical reaction with much more going on that meats the human eye. But I dont think even our greatest scientists can explain accurately how the human body works or even more spacificaly how even a grape grows. All they know is what they can see. And you guys should all know that math is a language that helps us understand things but the only thing that is accurate in a math equation is the math itelf. You cannot measure anything 100% correctly, not even a cup of water. I am not saying we should cease to try to learn things because we will never acctually know everything like that one guy said but I dont think we should ever think we know how things work. If everything deals with cells and atoms and ions and peptides and all that mumbo, tell me what tells that cell to do what it does and who designed it to do that. I am not saying you guys are wrong I just think there is alot we will never understand with the limitations of being mortal.

And by the way I think faith has nothing to do with your religion whether it be christianity or budhism or the flying spagetti monster religion. I think there is a god and that he knew when he created man that there were people who would never know christianity and therefore probably will look to see if you have faith in whatever you believe. I say this because have you ever tried converting an extremist of whatever religion you would like to use as an example to the faith you prefer. I think he wants to see how much faith you have and how you follow your faiths rules and spread the word to make sure as many of your fellow human kind members go to whatever heaven it says after your body fails. So just being a good person I think is a personal opinion of an imperfect personality. You cant be your own judge. No I think there is going to be a higher power doing the judging.

BearMeister wrote:I dont know I think the guy has got a point. I mean yea all those things that you guys posted sounds like you did your homework. But as most machines work there is a chemical reaction with much more going on that meats the human eye. But I dont think even our greatest scientists can explain accurately how the human body works or even more spacificaly how even a grape grows. All they know is what they can see. And you guys should all know that math is a language that helps us understand things but the only thing that is accurate in a math equation is the math itelf. You cannot measure anything 100% correctly, not even a cup of water. I am not saying we should cease to try to learn things because we will never acctually know everything like that one guy said but I dont think we should ever think we know how things work. If everything deals with cells and atoms and ions and peptides and all that mumbo, tell me what tells that cell to do what it does and who designed it to do that. I am not saying you guys are wrong I just think there is alot we will never understand with the limitations of being mortal.

And by the way I think faith has nothing to do with your religion whether it be christianity or budhism or the flying spagetti monster religion. I think there is a god and that he knew when he created man that there were people who would never know christianity and therefore probably will look to see if you have faith in whatever you believe. I say this because have you ever tried converting an extremist of whatever religion you would like to use as an example to the faith you prefer. I think he wants to see how much faith you have and how you follow your faiths rules and spread the word to make sure as many of your fellow human kind members go to whatever heaven it says after your body fails. So just being a good person I think is a personal opinion of an imperfect personality. You cant be your own judge. No I think there is going to be a higher power doing the judging.

A few points:

Scientists can explain how the body works to a very great degree. Doctors train for 6 years before they qualify and even after that they are still learning. For that reason we could spend an age here answering each and every question about why the body does this, and how does that work etc, but we wouldn't get very far, as the number of questiosn is near limitless. Even more if we expand that to other organisms such as grapes and the rest of the diverse field of biology.
Admitedly we don't know everything about the body. Which is why we still need doctors to treat people when it goes wrong, and researchers to look into new cures. Howefver just because science doesn't know everything , doesn't mean that science knows nothing.

Here's a thought though. Why are some people not able to imagine that there is no life after death? We all got on perfectly well not existing before we were conceived, so can't people accept that we may very well go back to not existing after death?

GooberTron wrote:(Unformatted Creationist argument)

This guy dissagrees
http://www.creationtheory.org

Then, when you're done, there's TalkOrigins.

It all seems to be a war of words and people's fuzzy defintion between fact and theory. There's a reason that things are classified as theory, such as evolution and creation, because they will never be 100 percent certain that this is indeed fact. When people have an "idea" on how life came about on earth, it's a theory, because there's no real way to actually prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt. Anyone who says evolution is a fact isn't a true scientist, nor are they intelligent enough to understand why that isn't so.
Now don't get me wrong, there can be strong and compelling evidence to "prove" a certain theory is the correct one, but in all honesty can we ever be sure? Never.
After all that, then it all comes down to the war between religion and "other", believe me there's just as much smack being talked between both sides as to who is the biggest idiot.

I was under the impression that they call it the "theory of evolution" not because it proposes that evolution takes place, but rather because it attempts to explain how it happens. "Theory" in this context means the numbers behind something. The, well, theory! The on-paper stuff, you know. Like with mathematical theory.

Also, a succesful theory is not proven. It is merely never disproven. When you test a theory you check for all the things where it doesn't fit. Otherwise you might go on and only look for things where it would fit and that's not very good testing.


Quite how life started is understandably fuzzy, but evolution itself has been witnessed. Look at dogs. And all the bacteria that have developed undesirable resistances.