Happy birthday, and many, many more!
Dave
Happy birthday, and many, many more!
Dave
i have never been fat - exactly.
but i have been overweight most of the past two decades.
lately it has settled around my waistline.. so, i decided to find a way to lose it without falling back into bad eating habits - a lifestyle change.. i have taken a few steps and began earnest effort to start moving the scale southward last monday, so i am 8 days in.. here is what i am doing:.
A friend of mine and I are the only participants. We weighed in this morning. We are going to go three months, with the highest percentage of loss the winner.
I remembered that you had posted about this before. Is the bet still on? If so, who is ahead?
I've never done a high protein diet, so I don't know what it is like. I'm still on my vegetarian (almost vegan) lifestyle change. I have meat about once a month and try to avoid products containing meat, milk, and eggs. I'm on a low fat, high carbohydrate diet. I have mostly complex and fiber rich carbs while limiting the sugars. Cutting out sodas made a big difference. I drink mostly water and iced tea lightly sweetened with real sugar.
Breakfast is usually oatmeal. I eat bananas for mid morning snacks. When I'm at work I eat peanut butter on whole grain bread for lunch. On the weekends I just eat when I feel hungry, so there's really no lunch per se. Dinner can be any number of things like homemade pizzas, bean and vegetable soups, burritos with refried beans and salsa, corn chips with refried beans and salsa, vegan "hamburgers," etc. I've really been enjoying my pizzas lately. I make my own crust and experiment with different toppings, and I don't miss the meat or cheese. I've found a great ground beef substitute for some recipes. There are some other meat substitute products I want to try soon.
I have never been a large person. The most I ever weighed was 170 lbs., and I did look overweight then. My body frame is just too compact to carry excess fat well. I'm about 5' 7". Last time I weighed myself I was down to 132 lbs. I bought some new jeans a few weeks ago with a 31 waist, and they feel a bit loose even with a belt.
Dave
http://www.alternet.org/world/140209/fbi_blows_it%3a_supposed_terror_plot_against_ny_synagogues_is_bogus/.
by the now, it's maddeningly familiar.
a scary terrorist plot is announced.
Yes, there is something seriously wrong with the government, and it's not likely to get better any time soon...
who or what are we acountable to for our actions?.
Since I have accepted atheism, my "code of conduct" may have changed in some areas whereas my patterns of behavior have essentially remained the same.
For example, as a Witness I believed that having a blood transfusion was unacceptable because it was displeasing to god. My code of conduct therefore prohibited this activity, but since I have never required a blood transfusion, my resolve on this matter has never been put to the test. Now that I am no longer a Witness or even a theist, my code of conduct will allow me to accept a blood transfusion, though I may still view the procedure with distrust due to my previous indoctrination.
When I was a small boy, I stole a toy car from someone. When it was discovered what I had done, I had to return the toy which was extremely embarrassing to me. The point was well impressed on me that taking the property of others was not acceptable. While I'm sure my parents tried to include "how god must feel" into the lesson, it was really about learning to get along with fellow humans and treating others how one wants to be treated in return. Not stealing remains a part of my code of conduct and patterns of behavior.
As a boy I learned how to masturbate. I didn't feel bad about it at first, but in time I was taught that it was "displeasing to god." Problem was, I just couldn't quit doing it, not even for god! The code of conduct I was being taught said one thing, and my patterns of behavior were different. I struggled with this contradiction well into my 20's. That's when I began to rationalize my behavior based on increased knowledge. Since the word "masturbation" does not appear in the Bible, I reasoned that this rule was man-made. I learned about the Puritans and Victorians and concluded that the leaders of the WTS were products of a sexually repressed culture. They took the morality of the Bible to an unreasonable extreme. I was able to accept my patterns of behavior as "normal," and like a good little anarchist I made up my own rules contrary to the code of conduct that I had been taught.
I like to play video games. One of my favorite game series is called Silent Hill. The stories are based on a haunted town crawling with monsters and ghosts. This is definitely not acceptable entertainment for a Witness. But I played these games anyway. My old code of conduct taken strictly prohibited such activity, but by that time in my life I was making up my own rules. For what it is worth, on more than one occasion I have seen Witness children playing Grand Theft Auto, a game with adult themes. I can only guess that their parents don't know what is going on in that game. I also know of one little boy who is not a Witness who plays that game on his portable PlayStation, but he also seems to know that his grandfather (who I work for) would not approve of him playing such a game. This boy seems to already be aware of a code of conduct imposed by older people, not by god. Though nominally Catholic, his thinking and patterns of behavior are atheistic and anarchistic to the degree that he can get away with things. In other words, he is a perfectly normal human being.
Dave
who or what are we acountable to for our actions?.
Thanks for reading, Narkissos! I'm still alive and well.
I understand your points, but we may be speaking about different things. Language can be so clumsy at times, and it is difficult for me to articulate some of my thoughts when they all come crowding in at the same time.
In effect I was trying to explore what happens in a human thought process. Our thought processes are hardly rational, and our emotions arise from our subconscious. Why do we feel a certain way about a certain thing? Often, we do not know why. In all likelihood we were conditioned to a certain response by our life experiences. Perhaps there is no free will after all, but neither is there a "code of conduct" by which theists or atheists strictly adhere themselves.
Let me rephrase that. Unless one has a rare mental discipline to do so, one does not review each thought and action against a list of do's and don'ts. One can develop a high degree of mental discipline using meditation techniques, and in some religious traditions this is an accepted path to enlightenment. One can count breaths, focus on a part of the body, clear the mind of thoughts, repeat a mantra, contemplate a positive emotion or a deity, etc. But I digress.
Perhaps what could be said about our mental processes is that our minds are adept at learning thought "recipes." Once we become accustomed to certain patterns of behavior, they become automatic. Whether it's learning to read, to ride a bike, to care for siblings, to respect the property of others, to play a musical instrument, to control one's emotions, etc., it is something that our brains have evolved the capacity to do.
It is also something that our extended period of childhood affords us to do. I have read anecdotal evidence that in some parts of the world childhood is of necesity much shorter than that of Western societies, and children from those parts display a maturity beyond their years. Does such maturity stem from being a confirmed atheist or theist with a signed and ratified "code of conduct"? Or is it a mental and social adaptation to environments and circumstances that many of us have never experienced even as adults?
Now, back to anarchy... There are so many social, economic, and political notions about anarchy that it can be a confusing term. Yes, on the surface our Western political and economic system appears to be anything but anarchist. In many ways and places there appears to be control just for the sake of control. Yet the human animal is by far the most resourceful and cunning on the planet. If an authority makes a rule that someone believes is arbitrary or harmful to his interests, he will seek a way to nullify the effect of that rule. This is the common anarchism (small 'a') which I believe exists in everyone.
Fortunately for most of us in "free" societies, we are able to satisfy our wants and needs more easily by following the rules. In fact I think that anarchism gets a bad rap because people assume that Anarchists (with a capital 'A') don't like rules. As I see it a principled Anarchist appreciates the spirit of the law and order while not wanting to be a slave to the letter of statutory code. The Anarchist ideal is that every person is a law unto themselves and their own police-person as well. An Anarchist is not the same as a common criminal. This type of self governance was once quite common among human tribal groups. If that ideal could be adhered to by modern, highly educated humans, only a minimal amount of government would be needed in order to settle common law disputes between sovereign individuals instead of the statutory police state and bloated nanny government we have today.
Since the ideal is all but impossible to achieve, one must create temporary autonomous zones (TAZ). This is not my idea, but that of writer Hakim Bey. I won't pretend to completely understand (or even completely agree with) what he wrote, but I like the concept anyway.
Dave
there is so much to say about the account of noah that shows it to be phoney.
but from just a single angle it can be safely concluded that it is just a pack of nonsense.. genesis chapter 5:.
noah is listed as the 10th generation from adam.
There are two different flood stories that were later edited into the one we are familiar with in the book of Genesis today. I originally posted this on a different thread: Arguments about the flood
First there is the Javist account.
Noteworthy features of this account:
1. Jehovah (YHWH, Yahweh) is used throughout.
2. Seven of each "clean" beast and flying creature. Only two of the rest.
3. The flood lasts for forty days and nights.
4. Noah spends 61 days in the ark. (7+40+7+7=61)
5. Noah sends out a dove. Where did the dove go the last time? It couldn't find a mate right after the flood, could it?
6. Noah makes an animal sacrifice. Jehovah likes the smell of burnt flesh.
Then there is the Elohist account.
Noteworthy features of this account:
1. God (Elohim) is used throughout, not Jehovah (YHWH)
2. Only two of each beast, clean and unclean, and only two of each flying creature.
3. Flood lasts 150 days.
4. Noah spends one year and ten days in the ark.
5. Noah used a raven.
6. No sacrifice is mentioned. This point reflected the centralized role of sacrifice to the priestly writer of this version of the flood. Richard Friedman gives an explanation of this in his book, Who Wrote the Bible?
In the original post I split up the two stories for anyone who wants to read them as separate entities. Sorry, I used the NWT as my source. And once you can see the two stories as competing and somewhat contradictory accounts, you begin to understand the importance of the Documentary Hypothesis. Another of my favorites is the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The post-exilic editor really screwed that one up big time! But wait, there's more, much more! "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial"? My ASS! Speaking of asses, do you know the most stretchable character in the Bible?
Dave
who or what are we acountable to for our actions?.
I tend to believe that all humans are anarchist despite any verbal arguments they may make to the contrary. When it comes down to it, you make up your own rules. It just so happens that your rules may coincide more or less with those of society as a whole. For you believers, if there is a god, he is in your head, not mine. Your invisible friend (or foe, if you prefer) is created in your own image, and since he did not smite me as I wrote these words, he does not objectively exist.
Humans are neotenous apes, and the extended period of childhood gives young humans the time they need to be socialized into their respective families and communities. A human child intently observes, copies, and receives feedback from his parents, siblings, friends, enemies, etc. If a human child grew up with a tribe of bonobos completely away from any other human contact, assuming it survived, what "code of conduct" would it follow?
It is during childhood that you create your own code of conduct based on the knowledge and experiences of your youth. Granted, you may be indoctrinated with a religion, but with any luck you will be exposed to people of other religions and even those who profess none at all. As you get older and more mature, you may consciously change your own rules as your experience grows. A personal deity is optional, but certainly not required.
Most people get by with just enough knowledge of common law in order to stay out of trouble. Also, the needs for personal comfort and self preservation prevent us from causing harm to fellow humans at the very least. One does not need a law library to know that a fellow human who thinks he has been wronged can use the force of the government to make oneself rather uncomfortable.
Yet the letter of the law (or more accurately, statutes) does not present an impenetrable wall to the resourceful bipedal hominid desirous of technically illicit activity. For example, most cannabis users (I do not, but I respect those who choose to do so.) find ways to get what they want regardless of local and national statutes. A good portion of those same users believe in a deity based on a broadly Christian belief system. Nevertheless, they create their own code of conduct where and when it suits them.
This is a good example of the underlying anarchy of all human conduct. We all have the ability to create our own Temporary Autonomous Zones where we make spaces that elude formal structures of control. Whether or not we accept, believe in, or create a deity that goes along with our perceived need for freedom or asceticism is besides the point.
Dave
I believe in what Leolaia said.
Okay, put me down for #1.
Dave
ok...i have three teenagers, ive heard my share of over the top hip hop rap and head banging metal music.
and i pick my battles with that, and know that i cant really control what my kids listen to any more but dont have to have it played in my car with me in it or in my house with me present.
so i start the late night shift where i work, and its a totally different atmosphere there...laid back...which i really like...but with that comes everybody's choice of music to play while they work.
Get your own loud stereo and play Kingdom Melodies.
Dave
Unfortunately, it seems as though most people base their beliefs about life in the Universe on pop sci fi. Most pop sci fi has very little science and a whole lot of fantasy and drama. I've read some very good true science fiction, though.
Life has existed on Earth for about 3 billion years, give or take, and for most of that time it has not been what we arrogant hominids consider "intelligent." All of recorded human history fits within the last 10,000 years. We were just as intelligent in the hundred thousand years before recorded history as we are now, but we had not developed the social systems then that we have today. In many respects it seems we have yet to master the necessary skills as a species to deal effectively with our current level of complexity.
Like I wrote before, it is very probable that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. Bacteria are probably the most common form of life in the cosmos. I imagine there are also countless planets with complex organisms and diverse ecosystems. It is quite possible that some of those organisms are self aware and "intelligent." Their intelligence may or may not manifest itelf in the same ways that ours does. Even if there were human-like beings on some other planets, there is no guarantee that they would follow the same developmental path that we have.
Dave