deibido

Jasmin . . . are you in the Large Hadron Rap? You are aren't you? "User assumes all risk"

I did post a definition of God, but it boils down to basically what you said. Spirituality certainly does exist, but that does not mean that a spirit must also exist. Now for question two, I will completely change gears, so I apologize in advance for hijacking my own thread. How did so many similar myths arise in such diverse cultures? Why do all ancient peoples speak of "gods" that traveled in the sky, created humanity and many other things, often lead their armies into battle and employed devastating weapons in combat, and gave humans most of its early knowledge? In particular, why are they always described as "descending from the heavens" often in firey "chariots". Could it be that the "gods" had actual physical existence in those days? Could it have been an alien race from the stars? Could these ancient peoples merely have been describing fantastic technologies in the only words they had? Could these "gods" still be here among us? Possibly, but there is no direct evidence to support it. "User assumes all risk"

As far as we know, there are no Earthlike planets around other stars. However, there is a very high statistical probability that they do exist. As far as we know, there is no entity known as "God". It is a possibility, however it is currently completely unsupported. We know that at least one Earthlike planet does in fact exist. We have no such knowledge of any metaphysical beings. "User assumes all risk"

Please read the OP and respond accordingly. That is the point of the thread. P.S. We do not make reality, we experience it. It is the same for all of us. Skydivers in particular should be very aware of what reality is. It's that big thing underneath you that seems to keep getting bigger. If you don't think it's "real" why do you keep pulling at the correct altitude? Because you know what reality is, that's why. Stop deluding yourself. Choose Reality. "User assumes all risk"

support from savannah sent "User assumes all risk"

Don't you know it's gonna be alright "User assumes all risk"

>Can your bitter doctrine of "reality" offer anything better than despair ? I just wanted to comment on this one line again. It is at the crux of the issue. People turn to all kinds of escapist things in attempts to ward off despair. They do this because for whatever reason they feel that they cannot handle reality. The problem is you can't actually escape reality, and the problems are still there, usually getting worse, every time they look back at the real world. This just pushes them further into escapism and avoidance in a vicious circle. It gets to the point where reality itself is looked at as the enemy, an agent of despair. We prefer our dreams and stories to living here and now, in the real world. It can be hard but when you are ready, reality will be here waiting for you. "User assumes all risk"

>It's easy to take a cheap shot at any religion, or all of them. But what do you have to offer as an alternative, other than being a confrontational nihilist ? I don't have anything to offer. That's the problem with reality you know. No glamorous eternal life, No spiritual ATM machine granting wishes, not even an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky. No fictions of any sort. Reality does seem rather bland in comparison. The thing is, if you actually look at it, really look, reality is an amazing thing. Incredible really. You may even find, after much searching and thought, that you don't need any fictions. You don't need me to offer anything because everything you could ever need is right here, in the real world. >My own religious belief in God is based on a not entirely rational belief that things actually could be better and that we don't have to surrender to hopelessness. You don't need fictional characters to make things better. In fact, they do the opposite. These fictions hurt us as a species. You can put down the stories and see that the world isn't so bad just like it is, it's not hopeless at all. It's friggin' amazing out there, and believing in fictional characters as literally real does nothing to move us forward in a positive way. Just ask yourself one simple question. If there is a "God", however you choose to define it, why would things need to be made better? Can we do better than "God" did? >Can your bitter doctrine of "reality" offer anything better than despair ? Reality isn't a doctrine. It's the real world. Doctrine is fiction pretending to be truth. I want to ask you to do something right now. It's very simple but it will illustrate my point well. Stand up, walk outside, look up into the sky and take a deep breath of fresh air. Smell that? That's reality. Make a point of doing this once or twice a day, to remind yourself of what's real. Reality may not be problem free but it's all we have, and avoiding it with fictions isn't going to solve anything. Choose Reality. It's the only honest choice. "User assumes all risk"

We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out "User assumes all risk"

That sounds great! Hope I can make down when you are there. "User assumes all risk"

Yeah, we can never know anything and its pointless to even try so why bother . . . we are so insignificant that our puny minds cannot possibly understand reality. That's the spirit. "User assumes all risk"

His point about building god? ok. "User assumes all risk"

Reality isn't so tough a thing to grasp friend. All you need is a healthy dose of doubt and a lack of internal fiction. Reality is all around us. Check it out sometime. You might like it. "User assumes all risk"

Wow . . . hands down the nerdiest rap in history. Impressive. "User assumes all risk"

Reality is not an opinion. Choose Reality. "User assumes all risk"

Marines . . . I should have guessed. "User assumes all risk"

Drogue stabilized HALO? No. Only for Tandems. HALO and static line? NO, that would defeat the whole point. HAHO can be rigged static line though. Drogues are not commonly used in MFF operations. However, static line heavy drops use drogues to deploy extraction chutes which pull out the load then deploy the main. You want cool? Check out JPADS . . . Ram Air High Altitude Heavy Cargo drops with GPS guidance You know you want to ride one. http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2006/jpads-med.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2006/06-40.htm&h=486&w=650&sz=223&hl=en&start=1&sig2=WCWW7GwAYawmdotPPOWgUw&um=1&usg=__u8ftBl-VpdVny3VBnisYkjENg3k=&tbnid=u8BBOWCKc1LoIM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=137&ei=dWbUSMPWO4iAvQWwgqDwCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djpads%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN "User assumes all risk"

They actually did mention HALO briefly, but it bugged me a bit that they kept talking about HALO/HAHO while showing stock footage of Airborne School. Yeah, HAHO is done with large Ram Air canopies in small teams. It is exactly the same as HALO except they open higher. Standard Airborne jumps are with rounds from, give or take, 1,000 ft. "An undisclosed desert location" Haha! Like the location of MFF school is classified or something. It also bothered me that in describing military static line ops, they said that the static line deployed a "drogue chute" before the main was deployed at a later time. WTF? Are they dropping HMMWV's or 155mm's or something? Where the hell did that even come from? Overall it was a good show though. "User assumes all risk"

Well around my neck of the woods, when the power goes out we break out the .50 cals and mk 19's Take that Zombie Invasion. "User assumes all risk"

In the Church of Reality, doubt is required. Doubt is the basis for the Principle of Self Scrutiny. Realists doubt everything. That's how we continually test ourselves to make sure that what we believe in is really real. Our doubt causes us to reexamine everything all the time to make sure we have it right. Doubt also gives us a deeper understanding of what we know. It helps us prune the Tree of Knowledge removing the dead parts so that the live parts grow stronger. Interestingly enough where doubt is required in our church, in fiction based churches doubt is prohibited. In Christianity doubt is the unforgivable sin. The one thing you are absolutely prohibited from doing in the Christian church is to think. Fortunately it is a requirement in our church. Choose Reality "User assumes all risk"

Some more . . . Maltheist - God exists, and he is a rotten son of a bitch. Apatheist - God? What? Who cares? More coffee please. "User assumes all risk"

Have we started throwing definitions around already? Sweet. n. 1. God 1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. 2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. So. . . which one will we use? "User assumes all risk"

Are suggesting that we build God and then go fly on it? That would indeed revolutionize this sport. I'm totally in But . . .uhhh . . . you jump the God-achute first. "User assumes all risk"

those terms have meanings that can be used to discuss science or theology. Please do. I have never seen any theological discussion that used scientific principles to do anything other than show that God is imaginary. I would love to see the opposite. "User assumes all risk"

The Wright Brothers, Igor Sikorsky, Robert Goddard, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison all have one very important thing in common. They made real things that do not require belief. I don't have to believe in helicopters, I can ride in them. Telephones don't require my faith for me to speak on them everyday. Rockets fly without devotion. Nuclear weapons will vaporize me without needing any proof that they exist. "User assumes all risk"