OK we did a thread on secular churches. Now, let’s talk Humanists. Of course, American Atheists shares lots of members — and goals — with Humanist groups. Thanks for your support.
CALLING ALL NON-BELIEVERS: Express yourself in a HumanLight Design ContestHumanLight is a holiday celebrated around December 23rd specifically to acknowledge reason, family, friendship, and other shared, secular values of humankind. To learn more, visit the website: http://www.humanlight.orgThe HumanLight Committee is hosting a HumanLight Holiday card and ornament design contest for secularists of all ages. Contestants should design an artistic expression to positively address these questions or some aspect of the HumanLight holiday.What do we have to celebrate during the winter holiday season? What do you hope for in the future? What’s the Humanist view/perspective? ELIGIBILITY: All are welcome to enter! Category 1: Ages 11 and under. Category 2: Ages 12-17. Category 3: Ages 18 and up. One entry per artist. All media, (painting, printmaking, collage, digital art, photography, or perhaps something even more creative?) is accepted.TO APPLY: Email the image as a high resolution (at least 300 dpi) JPEGto humanlightcontest@gmail.com. In the body of the email, include the artist’s name, age, what country and state (if it applies) he or she is from, and what method he or she used to create the image. DEADLINE for entries is November 1, 2008.Judge: Martha Knox is a fine artist, Humanist celebrant, art teacher, and Director of the Humanist Association of Greater Philadelphia.Prizes: Three images will be selected, 1 from each age category. Cards and ornaments displaying all three winners will be available for purchase at the HumanLight merchandise webpage. Each prize winner will receive an ornament and set of cards with their image, as well as some HumanLight candy! The winners and their designs will also be featured on the main HumanLight website www.humanlight.org.All images in this contest are owned by the artist. By submitting images to this contest, the artist agrees to grant the HumanLight Committee the right to print or otherwise re-publish the submitted images in marketing or web materials for the purpose of promoting HumanLight so long as credit is given to the artist as the original creator of the image(s). All proceeds from HumanLight merchandise sales will go toward further promotion of HumanLight.Spread the word!
Humans are just all right with me.
Humans are just all right.
Oh yeh.
At last a December holiday I can participate in– I don’t do Christmas because I’m not a Christian and I don’t do the Winter Solstice because I’m not a Pagan (the Pagans I know are into really weird religion and really let those gods,ghosts,and witches go to their heads and wear bizarre costumes and beat drums and chant nonsense). I’m no artist so I can’t enter this contest but it’s nice to know there’s a winter holiday for me.
I like Humanlight. I attended the first two Humanlight events in New Jersey, and they were great.
Even though as I grow old and fuddy-duddy, I’m not such a big fan of humanity anymore, it was fun to be there. It was positive and uplifting.
Joe Zamecki
Austin
I have crossed paths with humanists before, and in many ways, they are more like me than atheists.
While I resent organized religion, and hate their influence in this society and across the globe, I think the purest atheist brand of though is almost contradictory. You accept nothing until it is proven by science, yet you embrace the nonexistence of the influence of a designer, even though it has never been proven, and in many ways is counterintuitive.
Humanist put the whole issue aside, acknowledging that designer or no designer, we are left on our own to succeed or fail. No interference for or against us is forthcoming. We are like the dinosaurs, we will survive or become extinct as a result of our ability to adapt, think clearly on our feet, and rise above the social mental diseases that plague our cultures. Humans may be the first extinct species that committed suicide.
NeoWolfe
Thank you, Neowolfe:
That was very well put, and you have given me a lot to think about.
The idea that sustains me is that we are left on our own. It is comforting to know that no magic or mythic creature is controlling my life. And I like your comment that “Humans may be the first extinct species that committed suicide.”
Neo
And how does one prove that something doesn’t exist? Even more important is that theists give no operational definition of “god” and “exist” thereby making it impossible to answer the question “Do gods exist?”. The question is nonsense.
Define what you mean by intuitive and then attempt to justify that assertion. This ought to be fun.
I assume he was just trying to say that humanists are defined by a positive message, which is nice. Atheists are at best defined by what we aren’t and at worse by a position at once diametrically to a positive assertion yet equally untenable.
While I admire the approach humanists take, I’m just not that much of a joiner of anything remotely churchy. Plus, this “Humanlight” thing sounds kinda silly.
As an atheist and a secular humanist, I don’t pay much attention to holidays, except as occasions to get together with family and, sometimes, friends.
Some years ago, my wife and I started sending out Winter Solstice cards of my own design. But these are simply a way to note the season (and to remind folks of the origin of the holidays clustered around the solstice). They really have nothing to do with any sort of Paganism per se.
The HumanLight observance is another way to go, but I see no need for it personally.
However, I’m all for anything that reminds all of us that the most important thing is not the label we wear but the life we live.
I’ve met lots of people in my 67 years. Each of them wore many labels, depending upon which aspect of their lives was under consideration. But, in my experience at least, there is no one label that describes or defines anyone.
What threw down this challenge:
“Define what you mean by intuitive and then attempt to justify that assertion. This ought to be fun.”
Let me say that by now you know I don’t say things without thinking them through. At the same time, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and we can look at the same evidence and come to opposit conclusions.
While no free thinking person can deny that evolution is a fact, one thing gives me pause. If it’s true, and I believe it is, that both plants and animals originated from a single cell, I am awestruck that that cell not only had the ability to replicate itself, but also had the ability to adapt and evolve to a constantly changing environment. Today we find life in total darkness of the deepest part of the ocean, thriving even around volcanic vents. There is life on the frozen polar caps, and in the dryest hottest regions of the world. Life is nearly unstoppable, finding opportunity, and thriving in the most unlikely places. What makes me stop and think is that the evolutionary process was built right into the mechanics of life from the very beginning.
Now, this is not to say that I have concluded that there is a designer, nor do believe that if there is, that he gives a rats ass if we survive or not as a species. I just feel that observation of what life has become, it’s tenacity, it’s cruel and heartless insistance on survival, leaves some room for doubt about the possibility that inteligence planted the seed. In that way, I feel that attaching the label of “accident” is somewhat counterintuitive.
Well, What, was it as much fun as you thought it would be?
NeoWolfe
Neo
That was no fun at all. You gave no definition of intuitive.
Furthermore, who cares if it is intuitive ot not. The history of science is one of debunking foolish intuition.
But nobody here attached that label.
Evolution requires no “accident”.
What,
My original post only used the word, “counterintuitive”. You asked for a definition of intuitive, and if you can’t make the connection, consult your latest dictionary.
You stated:
“Evolution requires no “accident”.
That is the most ridiculous remark that I can recall you ever made. So let’s put the glove on the other fist, and you explain to me how evolution began without an accident. This oughta be fun.
NeoWolfe
Before this one spirals out of hand, it should be pointed out that in the biological context “unplanned” and “accidental”, while technically interchangable, have significantly different emotional charges.
With regard to evolution it’s best to think in terms of pressures, cirsumstances, and inevitability.
If I were you, NeoWolf, I’d try to find a way to state what you mean here without involving the word “accident”.
Cynic
Good advice. But “accident” will probably be as precise as anything else he pulls out of his hat. But I will wait and see.
Neo
Thanks for turning me on to this new fangled dictionary thingy. Wow it even has pictures!
It is precisely because I can make the connection between the words “intuitive” and “counterintuitive” that a asked you for YOUR definition of intuitive.
And as I pointed out, who cares if it offends your intuition or anyone’s intuition? Is intuition some gold standard to which we should hold up all facts won by painstaking investigation?
What,
I am seldom left without answer, but your discontinuity of thought makes me want to consult a witchdoctor in order to learn with language you are speaking.
Cynic, one of my most respected collegues here had this to say:
“Before this one spirals out of hand, it should be pointed out that in the biological context “unplanned” and “accidental”, while technically interchangable, have significantly different emotional charges”.
To soften the language does not change the issue. Purist atheists buy the hardcore theory that elements present in primordial earth had the ingredients of proteins necessary for carbon based life, joined by electrical strikes. I don’t disagree. The idea of an electrical strike that formed a single living cell not only able to replicate itself but to adapt and evolve to any environmental situation on this planet is at the very least a huge leap of unsubstantiated “FAITH”. The fact that scientists have been trying to recreate spontaneous life in laboratories ever since Darwin published his theory and have failed, places the philosophy of Atheism in the same catagory as any other religion. Assuming facts not yet in evidence. You can bash on agnostics if you wish, but the truth is when it comes to science, we are the free thinkers, and atheists have become the blind faith fundamentalists.
NeoWolfe
The “idea that an electrical strike formed a living cell that could not only replicate itself but adapt and evolve to any environmental situation on this planet” is an absurd oversimplification of what actual biologists studying abiogenesis would ever dare to claim. Plus, that field is very small, given that it’s purely academic and has little utility.
The assumption that atheists make is rooted in the confidence that nothing has ever been observed has followed physical laws and not required a god to happen, and the further we look into, well, everything, the more this has been borne out. It’s not much of a leap, let alone an unsubstantiated one.
Of the more fundamental processes in life, self-assembly, catalysis, and the exceedingly useful properies of ordinary water are the most important. In combination with the statistics of inevitability, it would be quite remarkable if life DIDN’T happen.
I very respectfully submit that if you understood those aspects better, you would feel differently about the ultimate, godless origins of life and the confidence (not faith) that scientists have in it.
If you’d like to discuss how cells work and might have evolved more, I’d be delighted.
Neo
Atheists do not believe in gods. It’s that simple. Do you get? We have no “bylaws” that give detailed presumptions about the origin of life.
Besides the kids on the playground who is making such a claim?
Stop dodging. You used the ignorance-loaded “accident” mantra of creationists and haven’t defended your use of the word. And you still haven’t made an argument for the superiority of intuition (yours in fact) over painstaking investigation.
Neo
Why do helicopters eat their young?
The question “Do gods exist?” is nonsensical. Apparently you think that entertaining nonsensical questions makes you a “free-thinker”. Have fun with my opening question.
What, you have strayed so far outside of the subject, I refuse to answer. Try NA.
Cynic made this very relevant comment:
The “idea that an electrical strike formed a living cell that could not only replicate itself but adapt and evolve to any environmental situation on this planet” is an absurd oversimplification of what actual biologists studying abiogenesis would ever dare to claim.
Thank you. Now, I am not here to claim that agnostics have claim to the truth. What I am here to claim is that purist Atheists are no better that any fundamentalist religious group by assuming facts not yet in evidence. By claiming higher scientific ground, they are no different from fundamentalist Christians claiming higher moral ground. Both are hypocrits ( I think thats the first time I spelled it correctly). Either you can back up what you believe with fact or shut the fuck up. Since a void exists between atheists, agnostics and humanists, why don’t we all shut the fuck up and join forces. But, wait, let’s wait until Pheedumb has his insight to add. Kidding.
NeoWolfe
neowolfe,
You’ve made a handful of statements here that I find really bizarre.
Aren’t ALL Humanists atheists? Being an atheist is one of the basic requirements to call oneself a Humanist. Humanism is a subset of the more broad atheist group, they are not two groups that partly overlap.
What exactly is a “pure atheist?” Is it possible to have an un-pure disbelief in a deity? You are, again, conflating Strong Atheism with atheism.
Further, generic atheists are not at all required to embrace the non-existence of a designer. Such a stance requires a positive belief in the absence of a designer, not a mere disbelief in one.
Here, you’re making the assumption that the cell is the most basic form of life. I haven’t seen anyone prove that yet, I could imagine a less complex building block than the cell.
Furthermore, the first cell was certainly not required to be able to adapt to a changing environment, it’s descendants were. Individuals don’t evolve, they are a product of evolution.
You’re right about one thing though, it is quite awe-inspiring.
You seem to have a very serious misunderstanding here. Again, individuals do not evolve. An individual is a mere cog in the evolutionary process. Would you say a single gear in your car’s differential has the entire mechanical process built into it?
It’s a common mistake to assume that evolution has some sort of goal or desire to create more complex creatures, but this simply isn’t true. Evolution by Natural Selection is a purely reactionary process. You could call it a side effect of living, breeding, and dying, not a goal-oriented process.
Agreed. But I can’t help but notice that we used to use supernatural phenomenon to explain just about everything. The more we learn about the world around us, the fewer things we have left that can only be “explained” with supernatural phenomenon. However, only a Strong Atheist would state that there is nothing that can only be explained with the supernatural, a generic atheist (like me) takes the “wait and see” approach before coming to a conclusion. It seems to me that that’s the umbrella you fall under too, you just seem loathe to call yourself an atheist for some reason.
Regarding the word “accident,” remember that an accident is something undesirable. Was the origin of life undesirable? There’s a reason only a Creationist would state that evolution requires an accident.
You originally stated that disbelief in a designer is counterintuitive. But why is it intuitive to believe in an unseen designer rather than take the wait-and-see approach? I think that’s what What was trying to get you to explain. Intelligent Design is not an intuitive idea to me. We don’t know if you would consider it to be, but your statement makes it look that way.
I don’t know why you think there’s some discontinuity in What’s statements, I thought them straight forward enough. Are you sure your not simply annoyed that he’s questioning what you consider intuitive?
It is also, as I pointed out up above, not a concept that evolution requires. You’re asking too much of the first living thing, of course it seems incredulous.
Why? I do not understand how you came to that conclusion. Running experiments and observing the results is somehow the same as sitting around and conjuring up supernatural elements? That makes no sense.
Also, why do you call atheism a philosophy? That also makes no sense. Humanism is a philosophy that builds upon the basic idea behind atheism by gathering separate beliefs from other sources. Atheism takes only a single stance, that an individual’s belief in a deity is unwarranted. Atheism doesn’t deserve the title of “philosophy.”
Philosophies are supposed to be used to answer questions once a practitioner accepts the basic precepts. Atheism only answers a single question “Do you believe in God?” At it’s most basic, the answer is “What are you talking about?” Not very philosophical, is it?
I won’t deny that you’re an agnostic, but what you’ve written so far has all been from the stance of an atheist. I think you have a misunderstanding of what “agnostic” means.
“Atheist” means non-theist. It does not mean “smug God denier.” If you’re not a theist, you’re an atheist. Since you seems to have stated that you are not a theist, then you must be an atheist. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between the two, there is no middle ground. Either you believe in a deity or you do not. It really is that simple.
“Agnostic” means non-gnostic. “Gnostic” means “possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge” (answers.com). Therefore, a gnostic is someone who has knowledge of a deity’s existence. An agnostic is someone who does not claim such knowledge. Agnosticism deals with the same general topic as atheism, but it answers a different question than atheism does.
(A)theism answers the question “Do you believe God exists?” (A)gnosticism answers the question “Do you know for certain?”
I don’t know if a deity exists or not, so I’m an agnostic. But I don’t believe that one does, so I’m also an atheist.
I know you don’t want to hear it, but you’re an agnostic atheist, just like What, Cynic, me, and the bulk of the atheists here.
I need to add one more thing. “Gnostic” is also used to describe practitioners of a specific set of pre-Christian and early quasi-Christian religions. It’s easy to get a bit confused about this.
Alatham
My wife says that patience and persistence are two of my outstanding qualities but you have me beat by an order of magnitude. I simply don’t know where to start with Neo. Too many assumptions are built into his posts. Kudos to you for trying.
Alatham,
No, not all humanists are atheists. They can actually be christians who upon examining their faith feel like responsibility for the future of our race has been bestowed upon us with all the responsibilities and accountability.
Ask among yourselves. A purist atheist dismisses the influence of any outside inteligence in the origin of life on earth.
And in case you didn’t notice, the wait and see approach was exactly what I was preaching from my pulpit. I said that atheism had made assumptions based on facts not yet in evidence. I on the other hand had left my conclusions open based upon future revelations. If you reread my comments, you will see that what I just said is true.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe,
You’re correct that Humanists are not required to be atheists, I retract that comment. I can’t remember why I thought that.
I still don’t know what a purist atheist is. I consider my atheism “pure” since I have no belief in a deity (that is, my skepticism is not tainted), but I also cannot dismiss an influence that I have no knowledge of without any evidence. Such an assertion would make me a Strong Atheist, something I am not willing to do without evidence. So unless we have a different definition of “purist atheist” then you’re simply wrong.
If by “purist atheist” you mean Strong Atheist, then why not simply say that? The term exists for a reason, it’s quite useful. Granted, once you start doing that you’ll only be addressing a small sliver of the more broad atheist population, but at least you won’t be annoying those of us who you aren’t trying to address (which is almost all of the posters here, to be honest).
I agree with that. It’s the only sensible position that I’m aware of.
I agree that you said that, but I think you’re simply wrong. What part of “doesn’t believe in a deity” implies an assumption that no deity exists?
You’re attaching fundamentalist beliefs to atheism at the same time that admitted atheists are telling you you’re wrong. I still haven’t read an explanation for why you’re doing that. Why? What possible reason could you have other than misinformation or intent to annoy? Those are the only two I can think of, but I hope I’m wrong.
Correct, you did say that. I also said the same thing. Saying that does not force one outside of atheism. Unless you actively believe in a deity, you’re an atheist. This is true regardless of whether or not you agree with other atheists on separate issues.
The assertion that no deity exists is only a tenant of Strong Atheism. It is not a requirement for the generic atheist. Unless you accept that, there’s simply no way for us to communicate further.
alatham,
Okay, I just deleted a response I was working on for about a half an hour by missing the right shift key. I’m not happy. Now I’m impatient and probably wont take the time to make any sense (assuming I ever have).
I suspect that your term “strong atheist” and my term “purist atheist” are much the same. But, I can only explain myself. I was speaking of someone who: Dismisses organized religion entirely as a fraud and parasite on society (that includes me) 2) lends no credence to the occult or supernatural (me too) and 3) looks to the state of the art understanding of science as the truth to live by ( which I think takes a good idea one step too far).
You said, “I agree that you said that, but I think you’re simply wrong. What part of “doesn’t believe in a deity” implies an assumption that no deity exists?
Now, you have to admit, that’s rather cryptic. Are you asking if belief that the world is flat makes it flat? We have not been discussing what truth is because the reality is we don’t know. We are discussing our perception of the truth and which perception, if any hold a higher ground as free thinkers. Like it matters, right?
Myself, I hate being pigeon holed as a person with a certain set of beliefs, because, really, I have never met a person in my life who shares all of my beliefs. Nor have I ever seen a definition that has not been bent in its connotation or denotation to mean something it didn’t use to. But, maybe, you should look into the definition of agnostic and see whether your wait and see mentality doesn’t fit better there.
You call yourself an atheist, I call myself an agnostic, but the humanists really got it right by putting aside all that bullshit to focus on the fact that the future is up to us. There will be no army of angels to rescue us in our hour of need.
NeoWolfe
Neo,
You’re right, there is a difficulty in defining words here. I suspect that this is due to non-theism being either misunderstood or straw-manned for most of recorded history. As such, I prefer to use the most basic definition of the words “atheist” and “agnostic.” If people get confused when I use those words, I simply point out that they are the words “theist” and “gnostic” with an a- tacked onto the front, at that point most of the confusion goes away.
Often you run into people who don’t know what “gnostic” means, so I always say “possesses knowledge of x.” The implication is that in order to possess knowledge, one must have evidence to back it up, so an agnostic is someone who has no evidence or knowledge that x is true. This leaves the possibility of someone being an agnostic but still believing in x.
For example, I don’t know that OJ killed his ex-wife. So I’m an agnostic in that regard. But I do believe that he did. My agnosticism doesn’t tell you much about my feelings.
Unfortunately for me, when most people (yourself included) use the word “agnostic” they mean “does not believe in a god, but also does not reject the idea.” However, this is the unambiguous definition of weak atheism. It is for this reason that I find “agnostic” to be an ambiguous word and I try to avoid using it unless I’ve already pointed out what the true definition is.
Many dictionaries only confuse things further. For instance, answer.com defines “agnostic” as:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Most people use definition 2, but that definition doesn’t make any sense for two reasons. First, it doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not the agnostic believes or disbelieves, it just says that they’re skeptics (that is, they have doubts). Second, look how they’ve defined “atheist”
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (emphasis mine)
So we don’t actually know what “true atheism” is even though they used it in a different definition. The more broad definition is “one who disbelieves…” so that’s the one I go with. But that more broad definition doesn’t exclude the possibility of skepticism, so I find definition #2 of “agnostic” to be useless.
So the reason I don’t use “agnostic” to describe myself is that sometimes it leads to confusion and the rest of the time “weak atheist” already means the same thing and is unambiguous (unless, of course, the person I’m talking to doesn’t know the definition of “atheist”).
One more thing,
I agree with you here, but I still think that “Humanism” means a great deal more than “atheist” or “agnostic.” So I don’t think that it can be used interchangeably without further mucking up the definitions of each. If you want to get really technical, I’m an agnostic atheist Humanist. Most of the time that this sort of thing comes up I’m only talking about the existence of a deity, so I only ever need to use “atheist” to describe my position.
Alatham,
I am entertained (in a friendly way) by your apparent need to be defined. That is something I wish not to be. My philosophy is unique to me. And the differences become unimportant, and even ridiculous, when you consider that the most important issue is that our fate is in our own hands, a realization that agnostics, atheists, and humanists all share, and should be an opportunity to work together for a common goal.
NeoWolfe
Neo,
If you don’t define/indentify yourself, others will do that for you. In the case of Atheists, mis-identification and false definition can (and often does) lead to ostracism in an effort to diminish your identity and your efforts.
Example: If someone decides to label you as something you are “not”, and causes detriment to you based on that false information, wouldn’t you seek to correct that situation? Otherwise you come off as some kind of ridiculous martyr.
As I’ve mentioned before, it seems as though (through your written thoughts (Psst, is that an effort to “define” yourself? – if not, why bother writing about it?)) you are still trying to cling to your (former?) religious background.
Neo,
I have no need to be defined, I merely prefer to use words that are strongly defined in order to avoid confusion.
Your philosophy may be unique, but it is still atheistic unless you believe in a deity.
I understand your frustration, it stems from the fact that words like “atheist” and “agnostic” are often misunderstood or poorly defined and cause people to believe things that aren’t true. But unless we can convince society to accept unambiguous definitions of those words then we will continue to get dragged into conversations like this one. That is why I make it a point to use these words and if they cause confusion I merely point out why the confusion shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Since I’m not a teacher or a dictionary editor, the only thing I can do to help is to correct other people’s flawed definitions.
I agree. Does this mean you’re done railing against atheists now? If you are, then my work is done as well.
Alatham,
RAILING AGAINST ATHEISTS???? That’s not fair!!! The only statement I have ever made is that “purist atheists”, or as you would label them, “strong atheists” have taken the idea one step too far, entering territory of assuming facts not yet in evidence. I think that is poor practice for a person who considers himself a free thinker.
Have you changed my mind about that? No!!! But, I guess your work is done, whenever YOU think it’s done.
As far as confusion about definitions, I think you wrongly assume that the people you present your label to have any clear idea of what the denotation of that label is, or care enough to find out. Wear your label with pride, I’ll just be out here floating around in my gray area.
NeoWolfe,
aka atheist, aka agnostic, aka humanist.
neowolfe,
Here’s a quote of yours from your first post on this page:
Despite your use of the phrase “purist atheist” I was under the impression that you were addressing the bulk of the people who commonly post here (very few of whom are Strong Atheists). If that assumption is incorrect then I apologize. If that assumption is correct, then I think you can see what I meant when I said you were railing against atheists.
I wasn’t trying to change your mind about that. I agree with your assessment of Strong Atheists.
Well, it’s not really an assumption on my part. I’ve had the chance to explain what “atheist” means to plenty of people who were willing to listen. I’m certain that some of the time you’re right and people just don’t care, but even if that happens I’d rather have them think I’m a Strong Atheist if only to boost the notion that there really are atheists out there and we aren’t necessarily bad people. Is it doing any good? I don’t know. But it feels like the right thing to do to me.
Like it or not (and I don’t), the general public simply won’t recognize a group of people who they can’t apply labels to.
You know what, Alatham,
I can tell you are a nice guy(or girl, I haven’t read a revelation of either). You feel the need to be labeled, and I feel the need not to be. That doesn’t make me right, it just means anyone assuming that I will vote along certain lines because that is what my group believes, has another thing coming. I am not only a free thinker, but I am also an independant thinker.
Do as you wish, but in my opinion its harder to explain that you are an atheist and all the gray areas it involves, than to say I am me.
That’s who I am, and going out on a limb, I would guess thats who you are too.
NeoWolfe
Alatham
That’s odd. I seem to recall Neo incessantly referring to himself as … what was that now … it’s coming to me … I’ve heard it 100 times by now … Oh this is embarrassing … Oh maybe it will come to me later … if I only I can free my mind … free my thinking … It’s on the tip of my tongue. Oh darn! Lost it.
What,
This is amusing. Neo states
and then goes on to label itself as
and
How is that not “labeling” oneself? Sounds at least confused if not actually deranged.
What and 666,
In the typical fashion you narrow mindedly missed the point. Big surprise.
The fact that I attach several labels to myself points to the fact that none of them really explain what I believe, and while I fit in all of those catagories, none of them define me.
However, I think that “talking without thinking” probably defines both of you.
NeoWolfe
Neo,
The only point you have demonstrated so far is your lack of mental and verbal skills as well as egomania.
Seek help!
666,
I rest my case your honor,
NeoWolfe
Neo,
Having recently learned of your psychological problems (banned books thread 09/26/08 @ 12:07), I’ll let you join phreeloader in the category “irrelevant – non compos mentis“.
neo,
For the record, I’m a male, toy inventor, and musician.
They do define you though. It may be an incomplete definition, but that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.
If you really feel this way, I think the only label you should embrace is “enigma.” If you tell that to people then you’ll be free to enter into more protracted conversations about the things that you do and do not believe.
I don’t mean this as an insult, but you come across as someone who really likes to talk about yourself.