Re: Religous debates and questions [2]

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:22 am

azriel wrote:So, two little Halfys, both the same
Thought it be funny to play a game ,
hanging off the curtains
hiding under stairs,
not going to Fluffamentary school
they didnt really care.

Granddaddy was called in
to put them narrow & straight
But two little halfys, cute, they aint
"to much alike & to much hair!"
accused Grandpa Petty

"they need a job,that pays 10 bob
(& not as a bloody yeti)!"
Halfys did alright they say
theres work in every town
But, production of "Hair", on stage, was nearly shut down,
"We wanna be cool & we wanna be rocking !
Not stuck on a geezers head, underneath a stocking !"
Toured they did with a rock band, balanced precariously for all to see,

Toured the country up & down but wanted to be free,
They live a happy life now, among the fields so green
& if you find one moving, You'll wonder what you've seen
Elusive is a Halfy, his brother is as well
Just look at these together
And think "what the fooking hell"

by Mrs Figg Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:20 pm

by Mrs Figg Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:23 pm

but srsly, they can clone animals exactly, surely if they clone you molecule by molecule atom by atom you would both feel 'me' and not 'me and him'. surely you would be the same person in the flesh and the mind??? Shocked

like if two babies were cloned they would grow up both feeling the same me-ness, oh bugger idk

by azriel Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:14 pm

I get what you are saying Figgy ! Its something thats rattled round in my mind as well. Maybe Ive watched to much Sci-Fi ? IDK ? It just seems weird to wake up & see a complete whole new YOU before you, would the sound of the voice be the same ? the pitch etc, would you both laugh the same ? shout the same? pre empt the same ! guess the same ? Would it get to a point where words were no longer needed ? Shocked

by halfwise Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:23 pm

I have a poem! cheers

by halfwise Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Just came across a program on the telly called "Confronting Consciousness". One of the main points is that consciousness is only a logical problem for those who bother think about it. Otherwise, the meaning of consciousness is basically irrelevant to anything.

The narrater felt that if consciousness could be proved to be fundamentally physical in essence, then the entire range of spirituality and mysticism vanishes. In other words, finding the physical source of consciousness would be tantamount to proving God does not exist.

by azriel Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:34 pm

Oh boy, that'll piss off the Catholics

by halfwise Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:39 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:but srsly, they can clone animals exactly, surely if they clone you molecule by molecule atom by atom you would both feel 'me' and not 'me and him'. surely you would be the same person in the flesh and the mind??? like if two babies were cloned they would grow up both feeling the same me-ness, oh bugger idk

Oh, you don't mean clone, you mean replicate. And not just the physical existence and locations of all atoms, but all the motions so that all processes are captured in vivo.

Of course you'd be in different locations so experiencing different things, different views, temperature gradients...I think at first it would be a very weird experience with you mirror imaging every motion and thought, but as your physical situations inevitably diverge your mind would follow and within a few minutes you'd have assumed different identities. I wonder if put in a completely symmetrical room facing each other at the moment of replication, how long it would take before you could break free of mirroring each motion and thought exactly?

by halfwise Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:41 pm

azriel wrote:Oh boy, that'll piss off the Catholics

More than just the Catholics.

Actually, I think the Catholics are more resilient to challenges than other sects. Been around longer, weathered more. Remember that Rome has long accepted evolution...try that trick with your typical american style evangelical.

by Mrs Figg Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:57 pm

halfwise wrote:Just came across a program on the telly called "Confronting Consciousness". One of the main points is that consciousness is only a logical problem for those who bother think about it. Otherwise, the meaning of consciousness is basically irrelevant to anything.

The narrater felt that if consciousness could be proved to be fundamentally physical in essence, then the entire range of spirituality and mysticism vanishes. In other words, finding the physical source of consciousness would be tantamount to proving God does not exist.

are you meaning consciousness as in 'me-ness or the soul? maybe its something different, the consciousness could be physical and the soul could be spiritual. I think consciousness is probably more electrical than physical mush ie grey matter. I think my 'me-ness' comes from sparks.

by azriel Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:12 pm

Well, me-ness has to come from somewhere or we would all be no more than robots trudging round the planet surely ?? I think 'soul' is what keeps us going, makes us human & allows us to make the decisions that we do, whether its rightly or wrongly. We use it to judge problems etc. but, me-ness is what makes us individual. every one of us.Thats why I like the things I do but, might not like the things YOU like ? And if you think about all the Millions of people on this planet ? Me-ness is kinda special.

by David H Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:15 pm

halfwise wrote:
David H wrote:
halfwise wrote:No.

Why not?

Because.

Because what?

by chris63 Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:33 am

Raw Sexuality against Malevolent Magic and the Evil eye.
The powers of the Phallus
Utilising the symbol of the penis in magic.

Religous debates and questions [2] - Page 28 Sacred+sex+sexuality+Magic+phallus+hermes+Mercury+Herms

Religous debates and questions [2] - Page 28 Sacred+sex+sexuality+Magic+phallus+hermes+Mercury+Herms

http://www.magicalrecipesonline.com/2014/03/whats-that-symbol-phallus-raw-sexuality.html

Can imagine Frodo and his fellowship all exposing themselves to ward off the Evil Eye. Smile

by chris63 Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:36 am

Sorry………no i can't imagine it Embarassed

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:50 am

Think of the chaffing! Shocked

(on the plus side you'd never lose your keys again and it'd be handy at parties for games of hoopla Nod

)

by azriel Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:38 am

That wasnt what I was expecting to see over my bowl of 'Honey nut loop cheerios' ! (gotta wipe the screen down now )

by Mrs Figg Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:08 pm

yeah I nearly spat out my banana

by halfwise Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:21 am

David H wrote:
halfwise wrote:
David H wrote:
halfwise wrote:No.

Why not?

Because.

Because what?

Because men are stupid, and women are crazy.
and the reason women are crazy, is because men are stupid. Nod

by David H Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:03 am

halfwise wrote:
David H wrote:
halfwise wrote:
David H wrote:
halfwise wrote:No.

Why not?

Because.

Because what?

Because men are stupid, and women are crazy.
and the reason women are crazy, is because men are stupid.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that:

The reason women marry men is that they're crazy,
and
The reason men marry women is that they're stupid
? scratch

If so, that would seem to be a strong argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

{{Which doesn't really get things straight at all... Suspect

}}

by halfwise Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:21 am

Well, if women make men stupid (I think that is well established), I'm not sure it implies that men marry women because they are stupid. Let's not get cause and effect mixed up here.
Though I think it's fair to say that the only reason women would marry a man is because they are crazy. (temporary insanity may be better).
After which they really become crazy and that is cause and effect.

I'm getting kind of mixed up here. drunken

by David H Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:25 am

halfwise wrote:
Though I think it's fair to say that the only reason women would marry A man is because they are crazy. (temporary insanity may be better).
After which they really become crazy and that is cause and effect.

I'm getting kind of mixed up here.

I hope you're not getting mixed up in polygamy..... Suspect

'cause that would be stupid. :facepalm:

by Bluebottle Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:23 pm

Isn't it strange that polygamous relaltionships are only disallowed inside the boarders of marriage?

by David H Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:27 pm

Not so strange really, Blue. Having lovers outside of a marriage has never been uncommon or illegal that I know of. It's the parenting and property issues that make multiple husbands or wives a problem in our culture, I think.

In Old Testament and Islamic polygamy, I think the big difference is that women can't own property, which is the source of all wealth, so if a man has more wealth than he needs, it can be considered a moral obligation to share the wealth by supporting a much larger family.

On the other hand, I believe I've heard of Asian cultures were brothers may share one wife because that's as big a family as they can afford.

I'm well outside my experience on this subject though, so if there are any polygamists here in Forumshire, please feel free correct me.

(It still seems like a really stupid idea in practice though. Any relationship that requires eunuchs to keep order..... Evil or Very Mad

)

by Mrs Figg Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:34 pm

ask Orwell

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:06 pm

Surely you mean Odo, unless there is something Orwell isnt telling us Suspect