THOTH

Domino Domino Domino - its true - we go round and round...I must have an infintie number of "beliefs" then - as I do not believe in Mithra, Allah, Odin, Ra, etc etc etc...no I am just highly skeptical that any of these exist - but in fact I do believe that there is a probability that some or all of that could exist or could have...and I am likewise skeptical but potentially accepting of the possibility that the Christian God - or various possibilities of such - including that such a being with the powers and attributes attributed to such (forgetting the various contradictions of course - as there are just so many) just might possibly exist...but again - which one...(probability is so very low though it seems...no matter)...I think it more probable that if the Bible tells some truth about this being that my conclusion is that he is more likely something more akin to Loki - and that he is having quite a few laughs at our various miseries...anyway - none of these non-beliefs (infinitesimly low probability IMO...there you go - approaching the infinite...) constitutes a (religeous) belief on my part - sorry in no way does it...and in the end I jst remain - as I have said - skeptical...highly...(and I am - of course - always ready to revise/modify/adjust my position based on additional evidence and such - of course...) no contradictions... As far as life and the universe...I propose that what we know of the paremeters is less then what we don't...so there! It seems as if the building blocks for life abound...nearly everywhere that we can view - in the known universe (only one we "know" [of]...thus really only one we should be speculating on..I mean who knows what the building blocks of the others are/might be - bubble gum and such...) - so many potential variables there...anyway so I think you are reaching when you attempt to assign probabilities here...and make conclusions thenceforth. And you are incorrectly factoring the probabilites besides..in sort of a half-empty/half-full manner...to claim that supposed negative mitigating factors against life somehow multiply each other (I say half full...etc)...and I am surprised how easily you seem to want to reject the scientific explanation for the mystical in this case ( ) yes probabilities...I know you play ches Domino...as do I....but I play poker & blackjack etc as well...and you claim I know nothing of probabilities...ha!

I am sorry to have gotten you so flustered Domino - hope your OK. I don;t understand what - of my beliefs - I am to be skeptical of - of my non-belief? Seems to become an endless circle here. Next I must be skeptical of my skeptiscim of my skeptiscim etc etc. What else can I say beyond that I think that everything we believe to be true could in fact be false (or at least not entirely true)? ...this includes my own beliefs BTW.... We have no ability to assign probabilities regarding the origin of life (on our planet or in the universe or what have you) - as we don't have all the data to know the playing field or what have - that we are dealing with. And even our defintion of life (and the processes of life) may not be all inclusive (but this is entirely another argument) - bottom line - tell me what the numbers (of galaxies/systems etc etc) we are dealing with here to establish the probability of life on earth or wherever (and thats the kicker...we are too deep into the "exprirement" to be objective my dear boy....etc etc and on and on... proofs... I've never "rejected" the mutiple universe theory (and in fact I can "proove" that I was the first - long before you - to ever mention such in this forum - LOL)...but again we talk of probabilities, possibilities, certainties etc...I do reject your contention that there muct be multiple universes for there to be no God (or the inverse) - or what have you...I can and do propose the non-exsitance of Zeus (fill in name of your proposed god/gods) and at the same time state that we cannot know if there are mutiple universes. Not only was that easy to do - but it seems obvious to me...nothing in your convoluted approach to this issue is any kind of a stumbling block here - sorry.... I am frustrating ain't I? Oh and I never said that infinite - in the physical worl cannot exist..I just said that I find it very difficult to fathom that it could...but OK - yeah - I could be wrong (I just don't see a high probability thatI am...speculation of course...but...)..and you keep claiming that I am claiming certain things to be true. You are putting the words into my mouth (figuratively). So quit it!

BTW being skeptical of being skeptical -- no you are playing with semantics. Its not an absolute...it is degrees..and there is no need to regect being a skeptic because of skeptiscim..it just doesn't fly...anyway I think maybe the mods should move our discussion to another thread (and give Ara's back to him) - perhaps in theology? Maybe titled "skeptiscim and belief"...

But what is my position other then extreme skeptiscim? (and I'll take these guys even further to say that : Everything that we (think we) know is wrong. On a fundemental level I believe that our "knowledge" of all things is at best partial/incomplete and at worst is (?) so totally off the mark to bear nothing about reality at all...but I suppose we have to go on something eh?) And multiple universes (belief in such) may be all fine and dandy (and you call me an anythign is possible/acceptable anarchist)...but basically these are likewise unknowns (and as yet completely unobservable and unprovable and based on very immature and evolving science...science that is based on assumptions which are liekwise - at this point unprovable and only theoretical - as appealing as they might be) ..and I find this concept of "infinity" to be just well - unfathomable (by definition eh?)...it seems unatural and pretty much impossible (IMO) for there to truly be such a thing as an "infintie" (in real - other then pure mathmatical terms..)

Cool - my kids are really going to love this movie I would guess. We've read much of the chronicals as well as seen (& enjoyed) the old TV (?) version... Thanks for the link!

Wrong Domino - I have never claimed to know anything definatively. Lets just say I am highly skeptical of other's claims! Speaking of you should check out my recent post (in response to a Gevo post) on another popular Armenian forum...lit directly speaks to this issue...as well as invoking you/your view on some Gevo speculation concerning possibilities for truth (for religion)!

here here! here here! agreed. And good job in general and specifically in regard to this discussion concerning (the absolute failure of) religion... "...To know is not to know" - Lao Tzu

Though the Russians were very much concerned about a possible second front develoing in the Caucuses - as the germans courted the Turks and made promisses and such (and the ruch to Stalingrad (and beyond) could be seen as part of an effort to assure the Turks that the Germans could cut Russia off from the Caucuses and thus allow the Turks to take such wihtout fear of immediate Russian reprisal - I am unaware of such mechanized units being maintined there -and find it highly doubtful that they were. Mechanized units were in short supply for the Russians until after some point in 1943 and i doubt that they would have left any idle with Moscow falling. Additionally tens of thousands (or more?) Armenians fought for the Russians against the Germans - and many were decorated for their valor. I also see a problem with timing in the author's story. Moscow was thretened in 1943 I believe - not 1945 - by then the Soviet armies were well on the move. And again - the race to capture Germany and German held baltics, Balkans etc would have (and did) drive Stalin much mor eso any ambitions against (resource poor and political albatross) Turkey.....

Yes - please do elaborate. Is this due to a demographic issue (and resultant ease of migration [from Turkey] for work etc), or to the poor Turkish economy, or due to expected political rows, a combination of the above, some things different or what? ...am curious as to your thinking on this one...

...yeah but if he is shy and self concious/paranoid/a sloppy eater or what have you he may just think he spilled something on himself... ..do tell... But yes I would tend to agree - with the opposite - experience with women - the shy ones can often be real tigers (and the aggresive/outgoping ones are sometimes a lot of show)...

Sorry to say, but my Grandmother died in 1984. We were very close. I'm in my 40's BTW (but young at heart...)...our family does have some pictures of her with him and in the choir...unfourtunatly I don't have any of them...

I've never been mistaken for a Turk (perhaps called one by some hothead on this forum!) but (and I know this will get all kinds of comment - so be it...) I've been mistaken for being Jewish many times (and ussually by Jews!). I had several Jewsich friends in college and got invites (and went to) several (as it turns out) all Jewish parties...interesting I must say....it was funy when once - under the heavy influence of drink - I let everyone know that in fact I was not Jewish - but that my name - which everyone mistook for being a Jewish name - was in fact German - and that I was in fact a mix of German and Armenian and other stuff - none of which was even remotley (to my knowledge) Jewish...well you could have heard a pin drop....it didn't loose me any friends (as far as I could tell)...but I did feel that I was "out of the club/inner sanctum" a bit...(sort of like what is going on in Hyeforum now...)...and I certainly was not invited back to these "exclusive" parties - yawn...no big loss...though the Jewish girls were nice. (some) looked way hot (and bras didn't seem to be much in fashion as I recall! ) , and they seemed to put out pretty good (not all put up with this maintain the virginity bit...)....LOL...

Axel - good points. I too see the hypocrisy concerning claims of patriotism and such and in fact I've been somewhat cautiious in the past about this word. But again - I think it all boils down to semantics. Feeling pride & identity and such with ones nation (or in our case ethnicity and perhaps nation as well) is fine. And I understand how without such a nation as Armenia and a people as us are in major trouble - that it is a necessity for us...but I can't help but cringe at these people who call themselves nationalists and who espouse nationalism as an overiding ideology...they apear to me as just as ugly as those who have done so - always with great damage - in the past.

And did you see this on the site: ATTENTION! On 5 July 2004, one of the key participants of this project, Lusine Melkumyan, had to undergo an unexpected eye surgery due to an accident and nearly lost all her vision. This 25-year old young lady will get another chance to see only if she has the second, more complex surgery, which she cannot afford. Your urgent assistance is desperately needed. For details, please, contact us by email: komitas@komitas.am or by phone: (+374 1) 22.64.70 PC Operator: Margarita Bazukyan

Wow thanks...way cool - will absolutley need to check this one out - looks good. Did I ever tell you (or folks here) that Gomidas was my Grandmothers voice teacher? Its true. She had a most wonderful singing voice and she also sang in his choir.....

hmmm http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/nationalism Now this is interesting: George Orwell on Nationalism... http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html And in my first post I was going to say that I see nothign wrong with being patriotic - which is more in line with what TB is calling nationalism - IMO...then what you are claiming nationalism is - I agree with Orwell here... And this bit in particualr: "A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige" and "The following are the principal characteristics of nationalist thought: OBSESSION. (my note read long article for details) INSTABILITY INDIFFERENCE TO REALITY (interesting point in the latter description: "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." And OK - for balance - here is a more milqtoast (TB) defintion of nationalism (and quite a nice in-depth discussion...seemingly...haven't had tiome to read it all I must admit...) http://www.free-definition.com/Nationalism.html and another..(still see the negative here - what can I say...) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalism and with that I'll be going...will check in later/tommorow...

exactly!!!. ...and in another thread you downplayed the negatives regardign historical Armenain nationalism...how can these tow correlate?

I disagree - nationalism is perscription for disaster IMO - and I view nationalism as including jingoism, chauvanism...and (often) xenophobia...I do see it as a dirty word. I think one can be a proponent of ones nation and people without being a "nationalist" per se - but perhaps this is once again a semantics issue...maybe we need a definition we can agree on. And I understand why the need to focus on Armenia and its prosperity and survival...if being a "nationalist" is no more then this - then OK. But I can care about such and act to support such without being nationalistic per se... I also know that some may say - of course he is against nationalism becaus ehe is some kind of trilateral liberal internationalist. Well...no. And I don't at all prescribe to American dominance in the world either. And I do not like the homoginization of culture and such. BUT...it is clear that we are moving - and have already moved pretty much inexpirably into an interconnected-interdependent world - and there is likely no turning back. And I think we must seek solutions and answers in this framework - not from purely a nationlaist perspective...even understanding - and accounting for the special circumstances and needs of a small and beleaguered national such as Armenia...

Yeah - you sound like a genocidal Turk (same with Vigil & Armenain Highlander et al)....so what makes you any better? Don't you and your ilk understand - its people who think like you who we are against. People who actually think that it is OK to think about and promote the idea of killing (or even deporting) (innocent) people off of the lands they live on. You are so without a clue. You and your ilk obviously have no real understanding of the real world - of families and children - nor do you at all appreciate human life. And we are to listen to your ravings? Get a life. Try to get out and meet and understand people. And understand that there is a difference betwen people and governments and interest groups and such. You have obviously learned no lessons from our Genocide - and that is such a shame. And FYI - nationalism sucks - and it is only a perscription for destruction. You - like your Dashnak predessesors see everythign in such balck and white - and are willing to make (or in your case just advocate) outrageous things - things that make us (you) no better then the Turk you so despise...and though your rants here are basically meaningless - will never have any bearing on reality (as most folks aren't so naive & gullible and just plain stupid and nasty as you) - in the meantime they do provide amunition to Turks & apologists who can point to the ugly attitudes, racist hatefulness and such from your ilk and say - "see - its them racist Armenians"...and in a sense they are right...the only mistake is thinking that their valid critiscisms of you and your type apply to all Armenians - but that is a shame as you give them an "in" a "hook" as a weopon against Armenians. And while your concern over the survival of Armenia and Armenians is (perhaps) admirable - you don't at all realize how off base you are (and of course your response will be - "I'm not - you are" - etc - yeah - as if...anyway...). Yes - I think you guys a a clear detriment.

Here here....also strongly agree with Arpa's comment which follows...and I can hardly believe it - I agree pretty much with everything Sasun and Ludwig having been saying in this thread as well - good job all! I still wouldn't have banned him (but perhaps I missed some strong personal attacks, language or revealing personal information that was edited out)...either way no great loss really - the same song and dance...but heh - its the internet - fokks can come on and post whatever - even if that have absolutly no real life experiences or knowledge and have no clue concerning reality...maybe one day thay will (mature and) look back and laugh (or cry about) themselves at this stage...(oh I'm including patriot and highlander and others I imagine along with this Virgil dude)...sad...

I hope you are being facitieous here... ..how about "implements of Mass Constuction" instead...eh?

Yes - I see what your getting at here...and still its good to be neither - IMO.... How can I?

Would you still worship this being if he/she looked something like a praying mantis that smelled funny and who took glee in watching star system explode (and all life in proximity with them)...and lets say the creator is also the destroyer, or is a being (or group of beings) that exist out of time (our dimensional understadning)..etc - how do we relate to these beings? Do they really care if you bugger another guy? And how are we to know any of these things? And does it really matter? What if the creator(s) are bacteria like beings or something totally alien and unknown with plans that do not at all coincide with any aspirations we humans might have - maybe we are just hosts - or maybe we are only in existance to develop machines and the next stage of evolution - synthetic/machine beings...etc etc - or maybe there is no plan - or creator/creators as we might know/understand - maybe we are just makig it happen as we go...or maybe....or maybe...or maybe...etc

Luds - Yes quite apparent that you studied and absorbed comparative religion for 14 years as you have claimed....yes...of course... If you cannot respect other religions then your religion/religious belief is not deserving of respect. And those who damn others to eternal damnation in hell because they [we] do not believe as they do are not showing any respect at all IMO - so I say - "get your jesus off my penis!" And jgm1975 - I hear you - and this is fine for you..but in reality does not at all (adequatly) answer the (my) question...and it is purely opinion on your part - as you admit - and not knowledge...how do you know that this god doesn't sit up on some cloud and have a long white beard, or is the great judge of men, or perhaps loves hell best of all - or what have you? Why is your version any better then anyone elses? And how can you at all lay out this topography of the godhood with only complete speculation to guide you? And Domino - thank you - confirms my claim/belief - that with infinite possibilities we are unable to reach any conclusions whatsoever - and the chance of any one version being true is in effect infinitely small - in the face of all the infinte possibilities that it is otherwise. And this is my belief....lol

Nice post. Interesting, valid points and a bit of a fresh perspective. Many good points - the issue of absolute proof, reletavism of arguments etc - but the issue of the time passed regarding the genocide of the American Indians - and how reperations/restitution and what have you now - as still valid is a point we should not forget...thoguh on the lighter side it made me think of Armenian casinos on Lake Van...don't know...