At 9/26/10 10:26 AM, LogicalDefiance wrote:

At 9/26/10 08:19 AM, la-yinn wrote:
I do not hold grudges against religion

Atheism is a religion, you know that right? It's just based on inductive reasoning as apposed to most being deductive.

The first three common definitions here kind of suggest that no, atheism is not a 'religion.' It's also pretty likely that any two people who claim to be atheistic mean slightly different (or very different) things.

Just saying.

At 9/26/10 10:26 AM, LogicalDefiance wrote: Atheism is a religion, you know that right? It's just based on inductive reasoning as apposed to most being deductive.

Wait what what do you mean by that? What are you on about with inductive and deductive reasoning? Do you know what those words mean?

I guess you could say atheism is based on not believing in gods... as opposed to most religions being based on believing in gods. That doesn't make it a religion, it's like saying silence is a type of music. It's just based on silence as opposed to most music being based on sound

and if you want to hear other gracious music metaphors by me, just send me a PM. :/

My understanding is this:

"Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin and purpose of the universe" - Couldn't have said it better wikipedia.

Atheism is based on inductive thinking, meaning the conclusion of which has been decided based on the question/look of things, then drawing from that to create an answer. It's creation theory is usually based on modern science, big bang theory being the most popular.

Most religions start with the answer though, then go on to try to back up that answer using deductive thinking. Most of their creation is based on a deity, genesis being one of the most popular.

Make sense?

They are both beliefs, like everything. In fact, and this is rather subjective, the only thing you CAN prove is your own inner conscious. Everything else is just what your brain believes is happening...which is why religion specifically is defined by it's center in creation, then spawns off into day to day life from there.

Atheism is no creation theory. It's also not a set of beliefs, it's not an organized thing, there is no worship, no rituals, no symbols or traditions, no doctrine about morality or ethics or anything you associate with religion. It's just the rejection of deities, there's nothing more to the definition of atheism beyond that. It doesn't mean you believe in any particular theory about the creation or purpose of the universe.

At 9/26/10 11:20 AM, LogicalDefiance wrote: They are both beliefs, like everything.

You could easily describe me as an atheist, but not because I specifically believe that there cannot possibly be a god. My 'atheism' is just as the word suggests, a lack of a codified set of religious/spiritual beliefs and ritual.

I'm an apathetic empiricist, and I'll thank you not to tell me I practice a religion, because the word 'religion' very specifically suggests those codified beliefs and rituals.

also hello loansindi

At 9/26/10 11:38 AM, SBB wrote: Atheism is no creation theory. It's also not a set of beliefs, it's not an organized thing, there is no worship, no rituals, no symbols or traditions, no doctrine about morality or ethics or anything you associate with religion. It's just the rejection of deities, there's nothing more to the definition of atheism beyond that. It doesn't mean you believe in any particular theory about the creation or purpose of the universe.

Yes you are right, but in broad spectrum, it is still based on creation(things that exist now, not just its origin)--its a belief that specific things cannot exist and therefore have to be governed by a set of physical rules relating to what we understand as the laws of modern physics. Atheism is a very loose term in regards to things that other religions have a bigger focus on such as the things you listed. Also, atheism is certainly not an organized religion, it is more open to interpretation, like theism in general.

At 9/26/10 11:42 AM, loansindi wrote:

At 9/26/10 11:20 AM, LogicalDefiance wrote: They are both beliefs, like everything.

You could easily describe me as an atheist, but not because I specifically believe that there cannot possibly be a god.

Then may I refer you to the term "agnosticism" to replace "atheism" because atheism IS the specific belief that there cannot be a god.

Hey! Look over here!

At 9/26/10 12:14 PM, Sequenced wrote: Hey! Look over here!

Not the same topic...this is more like, audio forum vs. LD's terminology

At 9/26/10 11:52 AM, SBB wrote: also hello loansindi

hai!

At 9/26/10 07:31 AM, SBB wrote: I don't think satanists believe in the biblical description of Satan.

In my sect your absolutely correct. Some people joke at my sect as putting Lucifer in heaven and Yahweh in hell, but that's not really the case. I'd rather not explain the whole shitbag here so whatever :P
The funny thing is that you guys picked THAT out of everything I said to talk about lmao

The satanic bible is a really interesting book actually. I wonder if Satanists use it in the same way Christians use their bible

At 9/26/10 12:42 PM, loansindi wrote:

At 9/26/10 11:52 AM, SBB wrote: also hello loansindi

hai!

How has your day been?

At 9/26/10 01:43 PM, LogicalDefiance wrote: The satanic bible is a really interesting book actually. I wonder if Satanists use it in the same way Christians use their bible

It depends really. Satanism is a strange, complex and diverse religion with MANY different sects, cults and Individual Thinkers and philosophers. Yes it is extremely different from common misconception that we are freaks who run around committing Abrahamic (Ibrahimic) sins and such.

Many 'satanists' don't follow the Satanic or Black Bible(s). In fact I've never even READ the black bible and openly denounce LaVey, even though I respect him and his teachings as semi or possible truth.

"Promethian Gnostics: Believe in a literal "Satan", but believe
that the creator of the world (Jehovah) is the evil deity. Satan is
seen as the "bringer of light"; a beneficient god. This is an old
"heresy" seen in groups such as the Yezidis or the Ophites."

That is alot like my sect of Satanism but as stated before, it's more complex than that.

"_The Satanic Bible_ is a book describing the philosophy of Anton
LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. This organization holds the
view that there is no higher god than oneself, and that one should
worship accordingly. Life is the Great Indulgence and Death is the
Great Abstinence, as there is no afterlife."

There are nine whatchamadoozits in LaVey's work. But fuck him lol

At 9/26/10 12:51 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: In my sect your absolutely correct.

Yes i also had that thought. But i was just joking around i didnt expect a whole biblical debate.

But one thing i have to say La-yinn you shouldnt say stuff you dont know nothing about. Have you actaully take the time to really study and understand the bible?

This is all i am going to say about this subject:

- God did not create sin man did.
- God does not hate Gay people

At 9/26/10 11:07 AM, SBB wrote:

it's like saying silence is a type of music. It's just based on silence as opposed to most music being based on sound

WOAH DUDE! The definition of music is "sound and silence" PERIOD. There really are songs that are just pure silence. I'd suggest using a better metaphor especially when your in the audio portal lol. If I didn't know theory I'd have been like "YEAH MAN!" but nope :P

wow we are in a debate mood today

Silence

It is a part of music. It in it's own is not music; just like a clef, ledger lines, or a single note is not music...

Which is what I think he was getting at, without sound there is not music, only in context is silence musical.

Just like an augment unison....it SOUNDS like a minor second, but it ISNT a minor second =)

WOAH DUDE! The definition of music is "sound and silence" PERIOD.

mu·sic (myzk)
n.
1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.
a. A musical composition.
b. The written or printed score for such a composition.
c. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.
4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.
[Middle English, from Old French musique, from Latin msica, from Greek mousik (tekhn), (art) of the Muses, feminine of mousikos, of the Muses, from Mousa, Muse; see men-1 in Indo-European roots.]

Also, John Cage's 4'33" was a conceptual art piece. Technically, not really music but atmosphere.

counter peiod.

At 9/26/10 10:47 PM, Quarl wrote: Also, John Cage's 4'33" was a conceptual art piece. Technically, not really music but atmosphere.

counter peiod.

Lies it was to show that there can be music developed out of atmosphere, that the silent space within songs as we know it are just as important to the noise spots. Honestly if a song is just a bunch of noise trying to drown out any possibility of silence then it's just kind of annoying

Whats with all the retarded "what is music" posts cropping up. Gronmon's post had potential to be interesting but turned into "derp music". We all write music, yet over and over again people feel the need to bring up this silly game of defining it and just slowly edging towards some remark like "art is subjective", someone flames and then gay jokes come up as a diversion.

You forgot to flame you bastard tickler who would never receive more then one "yes" from a judge on American idol.

At 9/26/10 11:38 PM, Bjra wrote: BDSM

I think its pretty cool, wut bout u geiz

I enjoy it mos def.

Religiousy stuff

Religion is an interesting topic... I'm a spiritual person of sorts... but I'm more to thinking that you ultimately make your own path through life. Death? Who knows, but I'd like to think that there is some part of the self that continues on. Preservation of consciousness or something like that.

I've studied most religions to some extent though. That version of Satanism seems interesting. I'm familiar with the LaVey "worship yourself" variety to a decent extent.

Music

I'd say that silence is part of music... in that notes wouldn't be notes without it. Rhythm would be useless as well.

Now, to saw that silence is cound... that would be inaccurate.

*Sound*

and...

BDSM

Hey I'm down lol. Gotta keep shit interestin right?

BDSM

Bastardly diving sex machines? Belligerently douching sass mothers? Bound dangling seizure midgets?

wut?

happeh barphdeigh to me :P

At 9/27/10 05:24 AM, Quarl wrote: BDSM

Bastardly diving sex machines? Belligerently douching sass mothers? Bound dangling seizure midgets?

wut?

*burps*

That's what you get,
for putting on the asshat!

At 9/26/10 10:59 PM, Kirbyfemur wrote:

Lies it was to show that there can be music developed out of atmosphere, that the silent space within songs as we know it are just as important to the noise spots. Honestly if a song is just a bunch of noise trying to drown out any possibility of silence then it's just kind of annoying

I agree with you, mostly, on the first count, but I make noise music and I think it sounds damn pleasurable. I don't entirely like it when people call a silent piece or a noise piece or performance just "art". It's also music no matter what is said, BUT having said that, music is under the category of The Fine Arts so really it's all about context.

Now having said THAT brings me to the next step of theory: Music is aurally pleasurable. That would mean that no matter how much we discuss it (thanks to all who put their thoughts in, you all get 5 points) music is defined by the listener. It has to do with the theory of metaphysics and how everybody perceives the world differently. Of course, I could've said this earlier but, I love meaningless debates.

Hey guys! I just ordered 2 pizzas for a homeless guy!