what type of religion is yours?

breakingnews • Mar 15, 2005 6:37 pm
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907

I found this entertaining at first but then kind of frightening. Mostly because of the end result. Perhaps it just affirms that my republican ways really might be the work of the devil. :eek:


You scored as Satanism.

Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.
BigV • Mar 15, 2005 6:55 pm
Christian 78%

hehe... weird
perth • Mar 15, 2005 7:07 pm
You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism - 88%
atheism - 79%
Satanism - 71%
Buddhism - 58%
Islam - 58%
Paganism - 42%
Judaism - 25%
Christianity - 17%
Hinduism - 8%


Yay! I'm kind of surprised about ranks 3,4 and 5.
Happy Monkey • Mar 15, 2005 7:56 pm
Satanism (on that list) is not what you might think. The guy who started it just called it that to tweak Christians. It has nothing to do with Satan, as breakingnews' post mentioned.
Troubleshooter • Mar 15, 2005 9:24 pm
agnosticism 79%
Satanism 63%
Buddhism 54%
atheism 54%
Paganism 50%
Islam 25%
Judaism 13%
Christianity 4%
Hinduism 0%

The agnosticism is no surprise, but the satanism was. I'm not generally that hedonistic. The buddhism/athiesm thing is a bit weird though.
richlevy • Mar 15, 2005 9:49 pm
You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism 92%

I don't want to go into too much detail about the runners up, considering the climate in this country today. If anyone wants to trade results by PM, that's a different story.

I did score this in last place
Christianity 25%

BTW, I did find it interesting that it is possible to score a zero in any religion. I always assumed there was always some overlap.
Troubleshooter • Mar 15, 2005 9:55 pm
richlevy wrote:
I don't want to go into too much detail about the runners up, considering the climate in this country today. If anyone wants to trade results by PM, that's a different story.


Why the reticence here? Considering the climate here in the Cellar...

You can't set much store by the results anyway. We have not idea how the results are tabulated.
jinx • Mar 15, 2005 10:42 pm
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="300"> <tbody><tr><td>[font=Arial][size=1]agnosticism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="92"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]92%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]atheism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="79"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]79%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Paganism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="54"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]54%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Satanism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="50"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]50%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Buddhism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="38"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]38%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Christianity[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="17"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]17%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Hinduism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="17"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]17%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Islam[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="17"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]17%[/size][/font]</td> </tr> <tr> <td> [font=Arial][size=1]Judaism[/size][/font]

</td> <td> <table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="13"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> <td>[font=Arial][size=1]13%[/size][/font]</td></tr></tbody> </table>
richlevy • Mar 15, 2005 10:52 pm
Troubleshooter wrote:
Why the reticence here? Considering the climate here in the Cellar...

You can't set much store by the results anyway. We have not idea how the results are tabulated.

Because I don't use an alias. Therefore, when I run for Congress I will not be able to deny any of this. Just by knowing Radar I've probably already lost 10 points in the polls. ;)
Trilby • Mar 16, 2005 7:28 am
I am a Buddhist--89%! Who knew?
Troubleshooter • Mar 16, 2005 8:56 am
richlevy wrote:
Because I don't use an alias. Therefore, when I run for Congress I will not be able to deny any of this. Just by knowing Radar I've probably already lost 10 points in the polls. ;)


Knowing Radar probably costs you more than you might think.

And considering running for congress loses you points here. What's more important? :eyebrow:
Pie • Mar 16, 2005 9:01 am
Okay, this was funny:
You scored as atheism.
You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism 83%
Satanism 67%
Paganism 58%
Buddhism 46%
agnosticism 21%
Islam 17%
Christianity 17%
Judaism 13%
Hinduism 8%


Why only 83%?!
wolf • Mar 16, 2005 9:22 am
Buddhism 71%

Hinduism 71%

Judaism 50%

Paganism 46%

agnosticism 38%

Satanism 33%

Islam 33%

atheism 13%

Christianity 4%
mrnoodle • Mar 16, 2005 10:22 am
Christianity 83%
agnosticism 58%
Islam 50%
Judaism 46%
Buddhism 38%
Paganism 38%
Hinduism 21%
Satanism 8%
atheism 0%

the questions were loaded...."there should be no restrictions on diet or sexual activity" since when did those go together? "man is made for god, women are made for men". what if you only agree with half the question?
Troubleshooter • Mar 16, 2005 10:51 am
richlevy wrote:
Therefore, when I run for Congress I will not be able to deny any of this.


Somehing I ran across and thought of you...

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031005/creditcard.html

A Hill of credit-card debt
By Josephine Hearn

More than 40 members of the House reported carrying at least $10,000 in credit-card or charge-card debt in 2003 and parts of 2004, according to a survey of financial disclosure reports conducted by The Hill.

The findings come as the House is poised to take up a bankruptcy-reform measure that would give banks and credit card companies expanded powers to seek repayment from debtors who file bankruptcy.

Opponents of the bill drew hope from the data, suggesting that lawmakers who nurse high-interest debt might be more likely to sympathize with indebted consumers. High credit-card debt is often a factor in the decision to file for bankruptcy, although the root cause is usually related to a life-altering event such as a divorce, illness or the loss of a job, experts said.

"Members aren't that much different than regular Americans. Some run up high credit-card bills when they shouldn't. One would hope that it would make them more sensitive to regular Americans earning far less money that are threatened by this bill," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director at the Consumer Federation of America, which has opposed the bill on the grounds that it favors credit-card companies at the expense of average consumers.

Yet the 43 members identified in the survey were as likely to have voted for the bankruptcy bill when it came to the House floor in 2003 as were members without credit-card or similar revolving accounts.

In general, members of Congress were much less likely to have credit-card debt than the average American. About 51 million households carry credit-card debt at an average balance of nearly $12,000, according to cardweb.com. Only 10 percent of House members had similar debt.

...more...
Catwoman • Mar 16, 2005 10:54 am
Silly tests. I don't need a quiz to tell me religion is overlapping and contradictory. I don't believe in anything, just what I can see. What else is there?
Troubleshooter • Mar 16, 2005 11:05 am
Catwoman wrote:
I don't believe in anything, just what I can see. What else is there?


I know this sounds funny coming from me, but I believe that there is stuff that we can't see. For instance, Dark Matter.

Not that I can really do anything with what we can't see or anything, but there is evidence that there is stuff that we can't see in addition to all of the things that we have learned of as time went by. Were there radio waves before the invention of the antenna?
OnyxCougar • Mar 16, 2005 11:23 am
Catwoman wrote:
Silly tests. I don't need a quiz to tell me religion is overlapping and contradictory. I don't believe in anything, just what I can see. What else is there?


Don't believe in gravity? physics? atoms?
Catwoman • Mar 16, 2005 12:03 pm
I used the word 'believe' for a reason.

If I didn't believe in water would that mean it didn't exist? If I believed in ghosts would that mean they existed?

Belief is not knowledge nor can it be substantiated. What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters. And while I may not be able to see it, it exists beyond my own limited conception.

Hence 'all I know is what I see'. I can only know what I see. If you 'believe' in something, you can't see it.
staceyv • Mar 16, 2005 2:37 pm
You scored as agnosticism.



You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism 71%
Islam 63%
Buddhism 63%
Satanism 58%
atheism 54%
Judaism 50%
Hinduism 46%
Christianity 38%
Paganism 38%
Griff • Mar 16, 2005 7:28 pm
Christianity 83%
Buddhism 67%
agnosticism 42%
Islam 38%
Paganism 33%
Satanism 25%
Hinduism 13%
atheism 4%
Judaism 0%
cowhead • Mar 17, 2005 11:31 am
You scored as agnosticism.



You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism

96%

Buddhism

71%

Satanism

71%

atheism

67%

Islam

63%

Paganism

63%

Judaism

54%

Hinduism

54%

Christianity

25%
Catwoman • Mar 17, 2005 11:38 am
You are a person.

Though it is generally taken that people are alive, it is possible to be half-alive or dead. People are scared of death, and life. Some say it is possible to be half-alive and dead; however, one cannot be truly alive if one is dead.

person 100%

cat 0%

mouse 0%

philosopher 0%

great deity 0%

god's image 0%

unique 0%

relevant 0%

self-obsessed 0%

lost 0%
Mad_Hatter • Mar 17, 2005 7:07 pm
What an interesting quiz, I liked it, I never thought I would be that close to Buddhism, but not there, I new I was close, but not that close, I already knew that I was agnostic, but not near that close to satanism, I don't like satanists, they're creepy. I didn't see wiccan on there, if anything I would be close to that.

Agnosticism 92%
Buddhism 79%
Satanism 75%
Paganism 71%
Atheism 67%
Judaism 63%
Islam 58%
Christianity 54%
Hinduism 38%

Oh, by the way, does anyone know what Paganism is?
Elspode • Mar 18, 2005 8:25 am
Catwoman wrote:
I used the word 'believe' for a reason.

If I didn't believe in water would that mean it didn't exist? If I believed in ghosts would that mean they existed?

Belief is not knowledge nor can it be substantiated. What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters. And while I may not be able to see it, it exists beyond my own limited conception.

Hence 'all I know is what I see'. I can only know what I see. If you 'believe' in something, you can't see it.


There are lines of thought related to quantum physics that disagree with these statements. The fact that we exist and are able to sense anything at all could influence what there is to perceive.

I think it would be kind of cool if belief in deity (or gravity, or atoms) actually did bring deity into existence...
Catwoman • Mar 18, 2005 9:27 am
Well, belief is a form in itself, just as a thought, just as a tree. Therefore if you believe something, it is there, in a sense.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 18, 2005 8:13 pm
I wouldn't rely on a parachute you "believe" is there. :eyebrow:
Carnivean • Mar 19, 2005 2:23 pm
Evidently I am a Buddhist.
Griff • Mar 19, 2005 6:28 pm
Image
cowhead • Mar 20, 2005 2:22 am
I think it would be kind of cool if belief in deity (or gravity, or atoms) actually did bring deity into existence...

on a side note of that.. since we are 'bio-electric' entities.. and the law is that energy cannot be destroyed.. where does that energy go? I've been grappling with that one for a decade or so.. I have a theory or two... the main one being that it is returned to a central pool of energy to be re-distributed (randomly) to the next 'wave' of life... although the downside to that I have seen ghosts and the accounted for Joplin Ghost lights.. and have had a number of odd experiences to make me (want) to believe in the soul as an existing object... I have a couple of stories and I have witnesess (sp?... long f*cking day) to what happened and the bulk of them are more objective/less idealistic than I... oh I could ramble on but I don't think I can articulate it in the right way.. damn non-crystalyn thinking!
limey • Mar 20, 2005 7:14 am
limey is an atheist, though limey probably already knew this. Also, limey probably have several people praying daily for limey's soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism, 88%; agnosticism, 75%; Paganism, 54% ; Islam, 54%; Buddhism, 50%; Hinduism, 46%; Satanism, 46%; Judaism, 38%; Christianity, 33%.

I'd probably have described myself as an agnostic, but I'm happy with this. Am I the only atheist here?
wolf • Mar 20, 2005 9:12 am
I tried being an athiest, but I couldn't believe in it.
Fudge Armadillo • Mar 20, 2005 10:11 am
Catwoman wrote:
What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters.


I am often surprised by how few people realize this. Thank you, CW, you made my day.
Troubleshooter • Mar 20, 2005 3:46 pm
cowhead wrote:
I think it would be kind of cool if belief in deity (or gravity, or atoms) actually did bring deity into existence...


Read "The Number of The Beast" by Heinlein.

Fictons, units of energy measuring imagination.
cjjulie • Mar 20, 2005 8:50 pm
according to the test I am a Pagan. This is probably the closest to the truth.... :cool:
Catwoman • Mar 21, 2005 4:56 am
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
I wouldn't rely on a parachute you "believe" is there. :eyebrow:


Bruce you have this knack of reading a post, getting it very wrong, and replying with some half-arsed sarcastic one-liner followed by a ubiquitous smilie.

What I said was, belief is a form in itself. I didn't say belief can manifest something tangible, just that belief is a form in itself.

Belief is a form in itself.

What I meant was, belief is a form in itself.

[SIZE=1]I wonder if he'll get it this time[/SIZE]
OnyxCougar • Mar 21, 2005 11:38 am
Catwoman wrote:
I used the word 'believe' for a reason.

If I didn't believe in water would that mean it didn't exist? If I believed in ghosts would that mean they existed?

Belief is not knowledge nor can it be substantiated. What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters. And while I may not be able to see it, it exists beyond my own limited conception.

Hence 'all I know is what I see'. I can only know what I see. If you 'believe' in something, you can't see it.



This is a bullshit answer.

I don't believe in anything, just what I can see.


Therefore, if you can't see it, you don't believe it exists.
Now, I agree that what you believe has nothing to to with whether it exists or not.

We know gravity works, but we can't see it. We know all things are made of atoms and smaller particles, but without equipment, we can't see it. So even though we can't see it, we know they are there.

So I'll ask again. Do you believe in atoms? Gravity? microbes? You can't see them, therefore by your definition, you can't know they are there. Also, since you can't see it, you can't beleive it either.

So you don't know and you don't believe.
Catwoman • Mar 21, 2005 11:46 am
:rolleyes:

I don't think you'll ever understand what I'm trying to say, be it because of your silliness or my inability to communicate. Ah well. Time to seek out the place with only open, intelligent, like-minded people I always promised myself I would visit..... doh!
OnyxCougar • Mar 21, 2005 12:10 pm
I think I understand what you've said:
(1) you don't believe what you can't see,
(2) you don't know what you can't see.

Therefore if it is not visible, it's not knowable or believable in your view.

that eliminates alot of options for you.

However, that does mean death does not exist for you either. You can see people die, but you can't see death itself.

You can't see logic, so that doesn't exist in your view either.

All the emotions are non existant for you.

You live in a completely different world than I do.
Happy Monkey • Mar 21, 2005 12:26 pm
Um, you just restated what you had already said before she said you didn't understand...
mrnoodle • Mar 21, 2005 12:43 pm
Catwoman wrote:
:rolleyes:

I don't think you'll ever understand what I'm trying to say, be it because of your silliness or my inability to communicate. Ah well. Time to seek out the place with only open, intelligent, like-minded people I always promised myself I would visit..... doh!

If by "the place with only open, intelligent, like-minded people" you mean, "somewhere that no one will disagree with me", I wish you luck. Until you find it, you should stay here. The rest of us have to deal with people shooting down our beliefs and come up with a response - that's the whole fun of it.

I understand what you're trying to say. But
Well, belief is a form in itself, just as a thought, just as a tree. Therefore if you believe something, it is there, in a sense.
contradicts
What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters.


In practical application, you live as you "believe" more often than you live as you "know." You bring a coat with you on a sunny day if you believe the weatherman when he says it's going to rain later. You don't "know" it's going to rain, but your belief might save you getting wet.
Catwoman • Mar 22, 2005 6:49 am
OnyxCougar wrote:
I think I understand what you've said:
(1) you don't believe what you can't see,


I don't 'believe' anything.

OnyxCougar wrote:
(2) you don't know what you can't see.


Obviously. Do you?

OnyxCougar wrote:
Therefore if it is not visible, it's not knowable or believable in your view.


I'm not sure what planet you live on. This is really very simple. Where did you get the word 'visible' from? We could get into an old and repetitive argument about the nature of reality but really, what does it matter? You don't know anything, not for sure, and neither do I, so how can we talk about it?

Onyx wrote:
However, that does mean death does not exist for you either. You can see people die, but you can't see death itself...You can't see logic, so that doesn't exist in your view either.


??? Wrong.

OnyxCougar wrote:
All the emotions are non existant for you.


Wrong.

OnyxCougar wrote:
You live in a completely different world than I do.


Wrong.

I should have just left it at HM's point.

MrNoodle wrote:
If by "the place with only open, intelligent, like-minded people" you mean, "somewhere that no one will disagree with me", I wish you luck. Until you find it, you should stay here. The rest of us have to deal with people shooting down our beliefs and come up with a response - that's the whole fun of it.


I want people to disagree, if they think I'm wrong, but only for the sake of progress. Not if it means going over irrelevant, circular and downright stupid points just for the sake of stubbornness. Fair enough though, I need to learn how to communicate my ideas to people who can't immediately see them, I shouldn't be so intolerant.

The point about belief:

A thought is a 'thing'. Not tangible, perhaps, like a house or a mountain, but it is something nevertheless. Likewise, a 'belief', or an advanced and settled thought, is something. All I was saying is that a belief exists as a thing, and I'm suggesting it may not be too different or discernible from a physical form although we can't 'see' it.
mrnoodle • Mar 22, 2005 10:20 am
Catwoman wrote:
A thought is a 'thing'. Not tangible, perhaps, like a house or a mountain, but it is something nevertheless. Likewise, a 'belief', or an advanced and settled thought, is something. All I was saying is that a belief exists as a thing, and I'm suggesting it may not be too different or discernible from a physical form although we can't 'see' it.

I'm with you so far. What I'm missing is how you can say that belief is a real thing, but
What you or I believe is irrelevent. It's what there is that matters.

That's where you have me confused. If a belief is an "advanced and settled" thought, it can't be irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if it's some kind of random neural misfire based on bad information (which is what I got from your previous posts - that 'belief' in something is intellectual dishonesty).
Catwoman • Mar 22, 2005 10:36 am
No, belief may be real as a thing in itself, but this doesn't mean it relates accurately to the 'outside world'.
OnyxCougar • Mar 22, 2005 10:38 am
Catwoman wrote:

I'm not sure what planet you live on. This is really very simple. Where did you get the word 'visible' from?


Um:


Hence 'all I know is what I see'. I can only know what I see. If you 'believe' in something, you can't see it.


I'm not going to argue the semantics between "what I see" and "visible".


We could get into an old and repetitive argument about the nature of reality but really, what does it matter? You don't know anything, not for sure, and neither do I, so how can we talk about it?


Obviously, we can't.
Catwoman • Mar 22, 2005 10:43 am
OnyxCougar wrote:
Obviously, we can't.


Just listen to me and mrnoodle then ;)
OnyxCougar • Mar 22, 2005 11:34 am
No, I've opted out of this one. You say one thing, then you say something else, and when I point out what you say put together makes a different point than what you are saying you're trying to say, you call me silly?

Thanks. I'd rather stick a serrated knife in my eye.
Catwoman • Mar 22, 2005 11:45 am
Aren't all knives serrated, silly?
jinx • Mar 22, 2005 12:11 pm
no
Elspode • Mar 22, 2005 1:27 pm
Troubleshooter wrote:
Read "The Number of The Beast" by Heinlein.

Fictons, units of energy measuring imagination.


Read it? Hell, I'm still trying to figure out a way to build a Gay Deceiver...
AnthonyFrankChirico • Mar 26, 2005 1:41 am
IN RESPOSE," WHAT TYPE OF RELIGION IS YOURS." MARK ME DOWN AS DEVOUT CATHOLIC. ANTHONY FRANK CHIRICO. I'VE SEEN SATAN AND PERFORMED INTIMATE CONTACT FOR IT. I'VE BEEN SPIRITUALLY POSSESSED BY UNCLEAN SPIRITS FROM UNCLEAN SOURCES.I'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF SOULFUL EVOLUTION AND REINCARNATION.I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT BY MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTOLOGY BELIEF SYSTEM AND BEEN TOLD "IT" WAS MY "DAMNATION" BY A DOCTOR FRIEND.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 26, 2005 1:44 am
Catwoman wrote:
Bruce you have this knack of reading a post, getting it very wrong, and replying with some half-arsed sarcastic one-liner followed by a ubiquitous smilie.

What I said was, belief is a form in itself. I didn't say belief can manifest something tangible, just that belief is a form in itself.

Belief is a form in itself.

What I meant was, belief is a form in itself.

[SIZE=1]I wonder if he'll get it this time[/SIZE]

be·lief n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

form n.
a. The shape and structure of an object. b. The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.

a. The essence of something. b. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind: a form of animal life; a form of blackmail.

a. Procedure as determined or governed by regulation or custom. b. A fixed order of words or procedures, as for use in a ceremony; a formula.

A document with blanks for the insertion of details or information: insurance forms.

a. Manners or conduct as governed by etiquette, decorum, or custom. b. Behavior according to a fixed or accepted standard: Tardiness is considered bad form. c. Performance considered with regard to acknowledged criteria: a good jump shooter having an unusual form.

a. Proven ability to perform: a musician at the top of her form. b. Fitness, as of an athlete or animal, with regard to health or training. c. The past performance of a racehorse. d. A racing form.

a. Method of arrangement or manner of coordinating elements in literary or musical composition or in organized discourse: presented my ideas in outline form; a treatise in the form of a dialogue. b. A particular type or example of such arrangement: The essay is a literary form. c. The design, structure, or pattern of a work of art: symphonic form.

a. A mold for the setting of concrete. b. A model of the human figure or part of it used for displaying clothes. c. A proportioned model that may be adjusted for fitting clothes.

A grade in a British secondary school or in some American private schools: the sixth form.

a. A linguistic form. b. The external aspect of words with regard to their inflections, pronunciation, or spelling.

a. Chiefly British A long seat; a bench. b. The resting place of a hare.

Botany A subdivision of a variety usually differing in one trivial characteristic, such as flower color.

Care to back that up, brown eyes? :p
I don't believe in anything, just what I can see. What else is there?
Plenty...how about pain?
Belief is not knowledge nor can it be substantiated.
Oh yes it can. Belief doesn't stand alone, it has to be belief IN something. That something can usually be verified except the supernatural or super far.
one cannot be truly alive if one is dead.
Damn, you got me there. I believe you're right.
Well, belief is a form in itself, just as a thought, just as a tree. Therefore if you believe something, it is there, in a sense.

Yeah, nonsense.
I don't think you'll ever understand what I'm trying to say, be it because of your silliness or my inability to communicate. Ah well. Time to seek out the place with only open, intelligent, like-minded people I always promised myself I would visit..... doh!

I think Wolf can help you with that. She'll introduce you to people that are on the same plane....and can't put two coherent thoughts together.
I thing I find most amusing is you think you're way above us. Thinking on a level we can't reach. When in fact you're just fucked up.
Griff • Mar 26, 2005 7:48 am
I think maybe she's just young Bruce. Conceit based on testing well, that sort of thing. She'll figure out that her questions are universal and her answers have been mined before... kind of fits into her religion of a universal mind.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 26, 2005 11:47 am
Bah, she's stoned. Has a thought, gets enthralled with where she'd going to go with it, then forgets to go. Leaves all these disconnected half thoughts polluting the ether like the freon of rational thought. :rolleyes:
wolf • Mar 26, 2005 4:38 pm
AnthonyFrankChirico wrote:
I'VE SEEN SATAN AND PERFORMED INTIMATE CONTACT FOR IT. I'VE BEEN SPIRITUALLY POSSESSED BY UNCLEAN SPIRITS FROM UNCLEAN SOURCES.I'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF SOULFUL EVOLUTION AND REINCARNATION.I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT BY MEMBERS OF THE SCIENTOLOGY BELIEF SYSTEM AND BEEN TOLD "IT" WAS MY "DAMNATION" BY A DOCTOR FRIEND.


Please contact your closest mental health professional to request an increase in your Risperdal. Thank you.
OnyxCougar • Mar 27, 2005 10:47 am
Um, what exactly is "intimate contact" and how did you perform it for Satan and on whom?

Is spiritually possessed different from bodily possessed?

Wouldn't all unclean sprits be from unclean sources?
Trilby • Mar 27, 2005 11:38 am
wolf wrote:
Please contact your closest mental health professional to request an increase in your Risperdal. Thank you.


And your Zyprexa.
AnthonyFrankChirico • Mar 28, 2005 4:59 am
2MANY INTOLERABLE SIDE EFFECTS TO THAT MEDICINAL THERAPY TO INCORPORATE IT INTO MY LIFESTYLE(RISPERDAL TREATMENT).I AM THINKING MORE LIKE , A GLASS OF RED MERLOT AND SHACKING UP FOR THE NITE WITH BRIE. DO I STILL NEED TO DISCUSS , ZYPREXA?
Trilby • Mar 28, 2005 8:59 am
Quit yelling, Anthony. And no, Merlot is NOT the answer. Ask your doctor. There is absolutely no shame associated with being on meds. Lots of people are!
mrnoodle • Mar 28, 2005 10:25 am
Brianna wrote:
And no, Merlot is NOT the answer.

at least not with brie. Try a lighter, fruitier red with soft cheeses -- say, a Beaujolais.

If you insist upon merlot, try pairing it with Fontina. You need a slightly stronger cheese that can stand up to the smoky, spicy nature of merlot. Even cheddar would be a good pairing.

I myself like the cheese that you spread on crackers with that little red stick. It goes good with every wine, as well as various soft drinks, such as Tab.

2000 was a good year for California whites. Try Beringer Nightingale 2000, Napa Valley ($40, 375 ml) with the bacon-flavored pasturized process cheese food. Throw the crackers out, you won't need them.



k I have to work today. no more cellar posting.
OnyxCougar • Mar 29, 2005 3:28 pm
Found this on this blog:

From the London Daily Mail via RedNova.com:

Posted on: Friday, 11 February 2005, 00:00 CST
Can This Black Box See Into the Future?
DEEP in the basement of a dusty university library in Edinburgh lies a small black box, roughly the size of two cigarette packets side by side, that churns out random numbers in an endless stream.

At first glance it is an unremarkable piece of equipment. Encased in metal, it contains at its heart a microchip no more complex than the ones found in modern pocket calculators.

But, according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world events.

The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened - but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But last December, it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.

Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers.

'It's Earth-shattering stuff,' says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the 'black box' phenomenon.

'We're very early on in the process of trying to figure out what's going on here. At the moment we're stabbing in the dark.' Dr Nelson's investigations, called the Global Consciousness Project, were originally hosted by Princeton University and are centred on one of the most extraordinary experiments of all time. Its aim is to detect whether all of humanity shares a single subconscious mind that we can all tap into without realising.

And machines like the Edinburgh black box have thrown up a tantalising possibility: that scientists may have unwittingly discovered a way of predicting the future... (Click here for rest of article).

I went to the website for the Global Consciousness Project and skimmed over their procedures and data. Interestingly enough it does look like some pretty serious and thorough research going on here: the procedure for each step - from numerical generation to graphing - is documented at length. The data is made freely available for anyone to study on their own. And links and abstracts regarding similar research (wait a sec: our tax dollars are funding more of this?!) can be found. Some of them DO sound pretty oddball: like The RetroPsychoKinesis Project, which among other things sponsored an attempt by martial artists to alter past events with their minds. Ummmmm wasn't that the central storyline of at least five or six episodes of Kung Fu: The Legend Continues?

edit:
from the first link:

For what his experiments appear to demonstrate is that while we may all operate as individuals, we also appear to share something far, far greater - a global consciousness. Some might call it the mind of God.

'We're taught to be individualistic monsters,' he says. 'We're driven by society to separate ourselves from each other. That's not right.

We may be connected together far more intimately than we realise.'