I just found out something which is downright trippy. This medical student was visiting the Sistene Chapel when he discovered something unusual about the layout, and assumed it was common knowledge. At some later point, he studied photos of the chapel, researched it further and found out nobody had ever made the same connection as he had. What he had realised is that the painting on the cieling of the Sistene Chapel resembles a cross section of the human brain.

quote:Until I looked through the transparency I didn't realise that one of the angel's backs was the pons, that the legs and hips were the spinal cord... The knee of the flexed right leg of the angel with the bifid foot represents the transected optic chiasm, the thigh the optic nerve and the leg itself the optic tract...

Some facts:

- Michelangelo had a passionate interest in human anatomy, and was said to dissect dead bodies to learn from them

- The original design for the painting in the Sistene Chapel was supposed to have the 12 apostles, but Michelangelo told the pope it would be a waste of space

Obviously neuroscience didn't exist back then, but there is one detail that I find especially cool. God is imposed on the limbic system, which is the emotional center of the brain. On its own, I like that because it's like I'm always saying to atheists, religion is an emotional process, not a rational one. But even cooler is that Gods right hand is sweeping an angel in the part of the brain that is activated when someone experiences sadness. Whether you want to interpret that as the link between suffering and finding god, or that searching for god causes misery, it's pretty cool.

Wow, that's pretty interesting. I like the idea of Michaelangelo telling the Pope, of all people, "The 12 Disciples? Pffft. Not important." But the angel being the human brain is also pretty cool.

I remember hearing a lecture from some guy in my Native American Studies class who said that when scientists developed the technology to receive sound waves from outer space, they aimed the receiver at the sun. What they heard instead of the explosions they expected to hear sounded like a pulse - like a 'whump-whump, whump-whump' that imitated a human's heart beating while at rest. I can't remember specifically what it was that they heard, but that's what the scientists performing the experiment heard.

Yea thats very interesting. As for the sun sunding. All the stars and planets emit these sounds. The Bible even talk about the heavenly bodies singing praise to God.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

I like that because it's like I'm always saying to atheists, religion is an emotional process, not a rational one.

And just like emotion, it has no bearing on reality. Thought processes can trigger emotion, so thinking about religion can make you feel things. The emotion of religion is a result of your thoughts, nothing more.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

when scientists developed the technology to receive sound waves from outer space

Sound is vibration, and cannot travel through a vacuum, moron. Whatever waves the device was detecting, they were not sound waves.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

And just like emotion, it has no bearing on reality. Thought processes can trigger emotion, so thinking about religion can make you feel things. The emotion of religion is a result of your thoughts, nothing more.

I used to sound exactly like you, a deluded Cartesian scientific formalist. It's just odd for me now to realise how ignorant I used to sound, when I thought my rational perspective was the only supportable one. Sooner or later you'll realise that through evolution the brain was added to our design to serve the body, not the other way around. Thoughts can trigger emotion, certainly, but your brain is not the dominant force in guiding your consciousness (I suppose emotions can't trigger thoughts according to you?). Nor is any other part of your body a dominant part, they all exist as an interdependent set of mechanisms that form one unified organism. The "fall of man" wasn't some truthful description of Adam being expelled from the Garden of Eden, it was when man became self aware and started defining himself through the perceived isolation generated by sentience.

"The only thing that separates us from animals is" this or that, as if it is some great achievement for us to be so differentiated. Should we really be so proud to have lost our ability to act entirely spontaneously and without purposefully selfish motives? Is self determination based on rationality divorced from emotion such a noble path? The real question is: is that separation even possible? The body can't exist without the mind, and the mind can't exist without the body. Of course, as we grow up we learn that there are two "halves" of ourself, the mind that controls and the body that is controlled. Gradually we learn to center our consciousness in the part we perceive as being in charge, and some grow to disdain the chaotic nature of the body, a mere vehicle for carrying around the intelligent driver.

But to do so is to forget that our consciousness is simply the manner in which the organism of our body as a whole governs itself. Isn't it peculiar how we see one part of a bundle of tissues, nerves, and blood vessels, as being somehow fundamentally different from the rest? But no, somehow consciousness should exist as distinct and independent of outside influences. The idea of one part of the body isolating itself as much as possible from the rest is a form of madness, placing more faith in its fundamental reality simply because it allows us to make accurate predictions about the world. And so, the goal this aims to achieve, what use are the fruits of science to us? In seeking them we have made ourselves less capable of enjoying them, for a mind that represses its awareness of emotional influence has by definition lost the ability to feel. Does it really make you happy to endlessly categorise and isolate objects, events and processes in the universe? If you do it to seek happiness, this is madness and contradictory. And even the "wonders" of science that we have today, you must admit we lack the emotional maturity to use them. Why? Because we view them in isolation. Got a heart/weight/mental/whatever problem? Here, take these pills, science has the answer. This will control the symptoms, but will it create health in the whole person where it didn't exist before? Of course not, because you have to change your habits in life as a whole to do that. Try telling that to the armies of doctors that prescribe antidepressants as one hit wonders for making people happy, or companies selling guns as guarantees of a safe life. Madness.

Of course, my words will mean nothing to you until one of two things happen. Either you will become disillusioned with your purely rational pursuit of the secrets of the universe, after you realise that there can be no final goal in this way of seeking truth. Or you will have an emotional revelation so powerful that it washes away your prejudiced notions of yourself vs. the universe, and you'll realise you hold the secrets within yourself, the same self you insist on running away from. But by all means, keep trying to walk towards the Queen of Hearts until then.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-28-2005).]

^ i read something by Nieztsche about the despisers of the body, and you just helped me understand it, thanks.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

It's just odd for me now to realise how ignorant I used to sound, when I thought my rational perspective was the only supportable one.

Support depends entirely on rationale. Anything else is speculation or faith.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Sooner or later you'll realise that through evolution the brain was added to our design to serve the body, not the other way around.

Did I ever say the opposite?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Thoughts can trigger emotion, certainly, but your brain is not the dominant force in guiding your consciousness

The brain is the only force in guiding the consciousness. Or, more accurately, it is the only mechanism that creates consciousness. How do we know this? Damage the brain, and consciousness is diminished or destroyed.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

I suppose emotions can't trigger thoughts according to you?

Of course emotions can trigger thoughts. When perceiving X makes you feel sad, you will likely think, "wow, X makes me sad." This thought in no way changes the reality of X, nor is it any sort of reliable analysis of X.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Nor is any other part of your body a dominant part, they all exist as an interdependent set of mechanisms that form one unified organism. The "fall of man" wasn't some truthful description of Adam being expelled from the Garden of Eden, it was when man became self aware and started defining himself through the perceived isolation generated by sentience.

I really couldn't care less about your Bible fiction. I could write whatever I want in a book; it doesn't make it mean anything.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

"The only thing that separates us from animals is" this or that, as if it is some great achievement for us to be so differentiated.

Indeed it is a great achievement. It is what defines us as a race, what has led us to our current place in the world, instead of running naked through the woods trying to catch rabbits with our bare hands.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Should we really be so proud to have lost our ability to act entirely spontaneously and without purposefully selfish motives?

Animals operate solely on purposefully selfish motives, they simply lack the ability to analyze these motives. Not even animals act entirely spontaneously, because to do so would offer no benefit whatsoever, and carries a high potential to act to one's own harm.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Is self determination based on rationality divorced from emotion such a noble path?

Absolutely. The less we are chained by our animal drives (emotions), the more we are free to act as we determine is the correct course of action (based on reality, rather than chemical reactions in the brain- emotions).

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

The real question is: is that separation even possible? The body can't exist without the mind, and the mind can't exist without the body.

I presume you are suggesting that the body is the source of emotion, which is of course entirely untrue. Emotion is created in the brain.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Of course, as we grow up we learn that there are two "halves" of ourself, the mind that controls and the body that is controlled. Gradually we learn to center our consciousness in the part we perceive as being in charge, and some grow to disdain the chaotic nature of the body, a mere vehicle for carrying around the intelligent driver.

But to do so is to forget that our consciousness is simply the manner in which the organism of our body as a whole governs itself.

Actually, unconscious processes of the brain govern bodily function, except when concerning action taken by direction of the consciosness. The consciousness developed to perceive the environment and take action for the benefit of the body. However, the degree of consciousness we have attained allows us to attend to issues that do not pertain to the body, yet are nonetheless 100% real.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Isn't it peculiar how we see one part of a bundle of tissues, nerves, and blood vessels, as being somehow fundamentally different from the rest? But no, somehow consciousness should exist as distinct and independent of outside influences.

The consciousness is created by the functioning of the brain, so altering the functioning of the brain alters consciousness. Hence the effects of hallucinogens and drugs in general.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

The idea of one part of the body isolating itself as much as possible from the rest is a form of madness, placing more faith in its fundamental reality simply because it allows us to make accurate predictions about the world.

Actually, the ability to make accurate predictions about reality is precisely what differentiates the rational mind from the emotional mind, and even more so from all other bodily functions, none of which have the capacity to accurately predict anything about the world.

It is not madness then to value this ability, but rather it is madness to trust instead that which cannot make accurate predictions about the world, and is thereby unreliable.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

And so, the goal this aims to achieve, what use are the fruits of science to us? In seeking them we have made ourselves less capable of enjoying them, for a mind that represses its awareness of emotional influence has by definition lost the ability to feel. Does it really make you happy to endlessly categorise and isolate objects, events and processes in the universe? If you do it to seek happiness, this is madness and contradictory.

Yes, emotion sure does make you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? However, it does not allow you to better understand anything. I do not seek to endlessly analyze objects, events, and processes to make me feel good, I do so in order to understand that which exists outside my brain, that which is indifferent to my feelings.

The fruits of such endeavors are fundamentally the same as the fruits for which we evolved emotions: personal benefit in terms of safety from the outside world, and power over it. Rationality is simply a far, far better way of accomplishing this goal. That is why we evolved the capability, and that is why the capability has made us unquestionably the dominant life form on the planet, capable of accomplishing with little effort that which animals, based on emotion, cannot even comprehend.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

And even the "wonders" of science that we have today, you must admit we lack the emotional maturity to use them. Why? Because we view them in isolation. Got a heart/weight/mental/whatever problem? Here, take these pills, science has the answer. This will control the symptoms, but will it create health in the whole person where it didn't exist before? Of course not, because you have to change your habits in life as a whole to do that.

Both medication and lifestyle changes have the same basic effect: altering the chemistry on which the body and mind operate. Medication is the fruit of a greater understanding of exactly how the body works, allowing us to adjust the functioning as we need it.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Try telling that to the armies of doctors that prescribe antidepressants as one hit wonders for making people happy, or companies selling guns as guarantees of a safe life. Madness.

This is about money, not a fundamental misconception of the issue by those you mention.

The proper dose of the proper medication can make a person feel all happy all the time. The problem is that such happiness may not be warranted by the person's circumstances, and may lead the person to fail to take necessary action.

The guns issue has nothing to do with the current argument.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Of course, my words will mean nothing to you until one of two things happen. Either you will become disillusioned with your purely rational pursuit of the secrets of the universe, after you realise that there can be no final goal in this way of seeking truth.

Indeed there can probably be no final goal, as there will always be something more to learn. That in no way makes it any less worthwhile to learn.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Or you will have an emotional revelation so powerful that it washes away your prejudiced notions of yourself vs. the universe, and you'll realise you hold the secrets within yourself, the same self you insist on running away from.

Somehow, I don't think that I can figure out anything about black holes, faster than light travel, string theory, or calculus by sitting around "feeling" what's in my mind. Don't be silly.

Rationality does not have to eliminate emotion. It simply has to realize what it is, and always consider it secondary to rationality. Taking joy in a scientific discovery doesn't mean you have to impose your feelings on your scientific findings.

Link?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Support depends entirely on rationale. Anything else is speculation or faith.

I can't use language to make you understand that there is are layers of reality beyond that which is perceivable through the senses, one that is as real to some people as the everyday world around us. Of course, you can say this isn't an argument, and that there is no rational basis to believe in this semi-mystical statement, and both comments would be entirely true.

quote:Did I ever say the opposite?

You didn't state it explicity, but this belief is implicit in your position. You deny or criticise any knowledge that can be gained without the rationality that comes from the brain, and give the brain primacy over the body.

quote:The brain is the only force in guiding the consciousness. Or, more accurately, it is the only mechanism that creates consciousness. How do we know this? Damage the brain, and consciousness is diminished or destroyed.

Nonsense, even you must see the error in that logic. By the same token, damage the body (critically injure a major organ such as the heart, liver, stomach) then consciousness is destroyed. The brain and body are interdependent, neither can be more important than the other if both are essential to each others existence and normal functioning. Moreover, without knowledge relayed to it by the body, the brain could never develop to consciousness.

quote:Of course emotions can trigger thoughts. When perceiving X makes you feel sad, you will likely think, "wow, X makes me sad." This thought in no way changes the reality of X, nor is it any sort of reliable analysis of X.

My question was obviously not serious, it was to point out the error in your statement that religion can only be a product of thought processes, as if the relationship between thoughts and emotions is biased in one direction. Emotional religious experience can occur independently of thoughts, some traditions such as Buddhism encourage you to eliminate all thoughts to achieve a transcendental state of awareness. The brain has been studying with EEGs during meditation, and it actually begins to function differently in a state of meditation. One of the characteristics of a deep religious experience, particularly in Eastern mysticism, is euphoria while losing a sense of your own self. This is characterised by being in a thoughtless state, and the euphoria is caused by a release of synaptic dopamine, rationality is as far from this situation as possible. I've experienced this myself, and it bears no resemblance to the normal functioning of the mind, time and space dissolve completely and leave you in a state of pure awareness without thought. To think that your regular state of consciousness is the only valid one is highly arrogant, but more importantly incorrect.

quote:I really couldn't care less about your Bible fiction. I could write whatever I want in a book; it doesn't make it mean anything.

If you had thought about what I said before replying you would have seen that I rejected the tale in the bible as anything more than an analogy. I'm certainly not Christian, or to be more precise although I agree with the fundamental essence of Christianity I want nothing to do with its dogma. I would never use that dogma to support one of my arguments, and I certainly didn't do that here. My point stood on its own two feet, I pointed to a common analogy to illustrate it, not the other way around.

quote:Indeed it is a great achievement. It is what defines us as a race, what has led us to our current place in the world, instead of running naked through the woods trying to catch rabbits with our bare hands.

Our world is just as violent as the animal kingdom, even though we like to boost our own egos by pretending to live in an idealised world that does not extend beyond our imaginations. In fact our world is worse than that of the animals who act without thinking. They have no sense of injustice, while we consciously exploit each other and care only for our own wellbeing, despite knowing that we could do better. Depravity, sadism, greed, jealousy, there are countless qualities that us "superior" humans have picked up through our selfish tendencies. This world is a shithole, full of people who exploit each other, if you think that's better than having to hunt for yourself, fair enough, but I totally disagree.

quote:Animals operate solely on purposefully selfish motives, they simply lack the ability to analyze these motives. Not even animals act entirely spontaneously, because to do so would offer no benefit whatsoever, and carries a high potential to act to one's own harm.

I hadn't read this before I made my last reply, but this follows on nicely. I'll tell you what the definition of doing evil is: knowing better, and doing it anyway. An animal can't be selfish because it has no sense of self, it simply acts on instinct. And us humans, who have the ability to analyze our motives, do we even bother using that ability? Typically not, and the only reason most societies don't devolve into chaos is because people are afraid of punishment by the authorities - selfishness. Selfishness isn't acting on your instincts without understanding them or having awareness of yourself, it's having awareness of yourself and making that your priority to the exclusion of all other things.

quote:Absolutely. The less we are chained by our animal drives (emotions), the more we are free to act as we determine is the correct course of action (based on reality, rather than chemical reactions in the brain- emotions).

Rationality without emotions tends to bring out the worst in human beings - the Nazis were the purest example of this, but it also applies to modern corporations that care only about efficiency, doing things right rather than doing the right thing. Rationality divorced from emotions means you lose your humanity, the two must coexist.

quote:I presume you are suggesting that the body is the source of emotion, which is of course entirely untrue. Emotion is created in the brain.

Not quite. Emotion is perceived by the brain which is a different thing, however it is created by the body. In turn, this awarness is created in the brain by the same chemical reactions you said = emotions = animal drive.

quote:Actually, unconscious processes of the brain govern bodily function, except when concerning action taken by direction of the consciosness. The consciousness developed to perceive the environment and take action for the benefit of the body. However, the degree of consciousness we have attained allows us to attend to issues that do not pertain to the body, yet are nonetheless 100% real.

Certainty is a comforting thing, but I'm afraid this isn't as simple as your "100% real". First of all, what does this mean? In science, no truth is everlasting and 100% true, it is just the best theory tried so far until another one comes along. The knowledge can't be 100% real and eventually be proven even slightly incorrect, so it can't be the knowledge that is 100% real. Only the universe can be agreed to be 100% real, but this is something many spiritual people would happily agree with. The question then is how to go about understanding it.

So, how does the scientist go about doing it? Well first he claims to make himself as objective as possible, and remove emotions and his own self, individual body, from his pursuit. However then he goes and relies on laboratory equipment to perform his experiments! How is this different from his own body? Well you might say that the equipment gives the same answers over and over again, so it is reliable for finding truth about the physical world. Very well, but you're not arguing with a spiritual person about physical truths, you're arguing about metaphysical truths. What is so unreasonable about accepting that external bodies (laboratory) is suitable for finding external truths, while the internal body is suitable for finding internal truths?

The scientist is the best example of a practical rational thinker, but we might also look at the mathematician. Goethe made an interesting point:

quote:"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight."

The point is that mathematical knowledge is what is known as analytic a priori truths. In other words, self evident truths, achievable by starting out with certain assumptions. Truths derived from practical science are known as synthetic a priori truths, as they come from observations. In order for synthetic a priori truths to be possible, assumptions are also necessary, namely that space, time and causality are categories that the mind generates as prerequisites for knowledge. A consequence of this kind of knowledge is that we cannot know things are they are "in themselves", but only as they appear to us. Yes, this gives us useful beliefs we can rely on, but it does not allow us to determine the fundamental nature of the universe beyond ourselves. These arguments are not my own but those of Kant, and if you can successfully reject them you'll become a modern god of philosophy. Notice that this is rationality used to define it's own limits, so you can't reject this arbitrarily without also rejecting your whole rational belief system.

Rational knowledge on its own is not "100% real", no matter how comforting that belief might be. To put it bluntly, it's all in your head.

quote:The consciousness is created by the functioning of the brain, so altering the functioning of the brain alters consciousness. Hence the effects of hallucinogens and drugs in general.

Consciousness is created by the functioning of the brain in conjunction with the body. Your adrenal glands might release adrenaline, changing your consciousness, and this will be done as a result of working in cooperation with your brain. The oxygen levels in your blood might increase or decrease, changing your consciousness, and this will be done... etc etc etc

quote:Actually, the ability to make accurate predictions about reality is precisely what differentiates the rational mind from the emotional mind, and even more so from all other bodily functions, none of which have the capacity to accurately predict anything about the world.

It is not madness then to value this ability, but rather it is madness to trust instead that which cannot make accurate predictions about the world, and is thereby unreliable.

I just realised something. Our arguments are getting entangled because we haven't properly defined our terms, specifically whether we are talking about the brain/conscious mind/subconscious mind. In particular, the subconscious mind is relevent, because according to the branch of science we call psychology, the conscious mind is rational and the unconscious mind is irrational. What we should really be talking about is the rational conscious mind vs. the irrational subconscious mind. Emotions and instincts don't come magically from the body, they come from the subconscious mind, so this creates a problem for the whole body/brain issue we're talking about.

This post has gone on loooong enough already, I'll leave it at this for the moment.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-28-2005).]

Lost: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A681680

zorro, your an idiot. The sounds from the sun were electromagnetic radiation and was interpreted as sound similar to a heartbeat. Now if thats known fact and i say that the sun makes a noise, how do you come off as dismissing the entire claim because i said a star makes a noise?

My God the stupidity of some of you atheists. You say you refute God through science (evolution) yet you barely know anything about logic and physics.

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Sound is vibration, and cannot travel through a vacuum, moron. Whatever waves the device was detecting, they were not sound waves.

Tyrant, a moron ?

I suppose later on he dismantles you, and your puny brain, but I will have to wait here in suspense, until I hit the "Submit Reply" button to find out !

*dramatic superhero music ensues*

How did this totally innocuous topic turn into an argument?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Tyrant, a moron ?

I suppose later on he dismantles you, and your puny brain, but I will have to wait here in suspense, until I hit the "Submit Reply" button to find out !



There will be no dismantling here, since zorro is entirely correct. Sound waves do not travel in vaccum; hence, the equipment being used did not dectect sound waves.

If anybody wants to know, scientists inspected the Solar surface for movement. The equipment read the movement, and approximated the sounds it would have likely made.

zorro420:

Was the crux of my entire statement dependant upon the fact that they had to be sound waves?

No.

I'd appreciate it if, while making a point, you did so with a little more grace.

Rust:

So, you've heard about it? Do you have a link that shows where I can read more about it?

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 05-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

[B]

So, you've heard about it? Do you have a link that shows where I can read more about it?



http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/solarsounds/solarsounds.htm

---

Anyways calling this a heartbeat is quite simply misleading. Not only is the veracity of the sounds they claim would be made should be in question, but what they claim they heard is an oscillation of a particular sound. Something found in a myriad of other places.

To simply equate it to a heartbeat, is to romanticize the issue.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

To simply equate it to a heartbeat, is to romanticize the issue.

Pun intended, I assume?

Rust:

I doubt that they intended to say that, because the sun apparently "sounded" like a heart, that the sun had a heart that was beating. I'd imagine it was more of an observation between the micro- and macrocosmic correlation people have been noticing more often nowadays.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

I doubt that they intended to say that, because the sun apparently "sounded" like a heart, that the sun had a heart that was beating. I'd imagine it was more of an observation between the micro- and macrocosmic correlation people have been noticing more often nowadays.



Er... I never said they were claiming the sun had a heart. If it looked like that, then please forgive me.

My point was that they equate this sound to one similar to a "heartbeat" to romanticize the issue. I don't like that. It gives "new-age" hippies the free reign to claim that this is "interesting" because "nature is attuned to life" or any other such pseudo-intellectual crap they will undoubtedly spew. Again, I don't like that.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-02-2005).]

Just because someone is wrong about something doesn't mean that they ARE a moron, or that they need to be attacked under such a premise.

I wasn't saying whether Zorro was right or wrong...just that calling Tyrant a "moron" wasn't the nicest thing to do, and that he probably wouldn't stand for it.

Though it is apparent that Tyrant doesn't care, since he hasn't bothered to provide a counter.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

zorro, your an idiot. The sounds from the sun were electromagnetic radiation and was interpreted as sound similar to a heartbeat. Now if thats known fact and i say that the sun makes a noise, how do you come off as dismissing the entire claim because i said a star makes a noise?

My God the stupidity of some of you atheists. You say you refute God through science (evolution) yet you barely know anything about logic and physics.

(That was a bit a aggressive...) Anyways, just as an addendum to this - I think it would be quite obvious that a giant ball of churning a toiling fire and gas would make some kind of noise. Probably the really loud sound of a billion roaring fires may be?

Cheers,

Lost

Lost, why is it that aggression is only pointed out when coming from Christians ?

This isn't a martyr complex, either.

People are dicks on this forum everyday, mostly in the direction of Christianity, yet no such post emerges from you in response to THEIR aggressiveness.

Just curious...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Lost, why is it that aggression is only pointed out when coming from Christians ?

This isn't a martyr complex, either.

People are dicks on this forum everyday, mostly in the direction of Christianity, yet no such post emerges from you in response to THEIR aggressiveness.

Just curious...

WHY DON'T YOU JUST PIN YOURSELF TO A CROSS YOU FUCKING JESUS FREAK

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Lost, why is it that aggression is only pointed out when coming from Christians ?

This isn't a martyr complex, either.

People are dicks on this forum everyday, mostly in the direction of Christianity, yet no such post emerges from you in response to THEIR aggressiveness.

Just curious...



Nope. No Martyr complex here. Not at all!

Thanks, Rust.

Glad we agree.

If you can't see that this is true, then you're an idiot. We both know you're not, so stop being a prick.

It's completely obvious what a double standard we have going on here.

What double standard? Because Lost Cause pointed it out ONCE? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Boy you're fucking moron.