You answered the riddle correctly. There was a ‘prize’, if you want it. “Philosophy and the Emotions” … a collection of essays by various folks, edited by Anthony Hatzimoysis (secular). Too many big words for me.
Here’s another… crack it with the kids…
What’s that on your head? Bird of paradise try to crap in your ear, and missed? 
My wife says that he’ll be here for a year.
Clearly you believe that God answers a great many of the deepest questions. But you have now admitted that he does not answer them all; in fact he doesn’t really answer any of them. That is all I’m saying; there are questions the concept of God doesn’t answer. You may not realize it, but it doesn’t really answer any.
Evidence?
Exactamundo!
I don’t ask why to enjoy myself. I ask why because it is my nature. Humans are born with brains that, just like a heart beating, continuously ask questions of the world we find ourselves in. We came up with a notion that seemed to get our heads around many of the big questions; meaning, purpose, our place in the universe, our place in nature, what to do with our lives, etc. Many have progressed beyond the bronze age myths of Gods, but some modern day people just can’t seem to shake the notion. They still hold onto the scraps of the, ever-diminishing in size, notion of God.
Not quite. I’m saying that, when the answer is God, we seem to stop asking the question, when it hasn’t really been answered yet. Any question we can ask of ourselves, we can ask of God too.
Bane–this is the deal, though. See, if you ever come to the answer, THE answer… you’ll just ask … “Why?” For you, there can be no answer. The ‘current’ you, anyway. Once you get it, you’ll understand why the “Why?” stops. And this silly conversation will make you laugh your glutes off all that much more. I pray you do get it. What’s 2+2? 4. Why? What is that which we walk upon? The ground. Why? What’s the meaning of life? Love. Why? Why does Bane always ask why? To annoy you. Why? Because you’re annoying. Why? Because you ask too many questions. Why? Because… I said so!
Hey… I say that word sometimes.
I wonder. How many times have I asked you to join the book discussion? A little piece of trivia.
The Stumps – I see you’ve changed your profile picture, so that I cannot enjoy continued guessing of what was on your head. My next guess was a new-fangled, artsy-fartsy hearing aide. Was I close?
I need to change that riddle so that the answer is more obvious. It is supposed to be “always”. She didn’t exactly get it wrong, 'cause ‘for a year’ doesn’t exactly not-work.
If I haven’t invited you and your wife to join the discussion yet… I hope you do join.
Who knows.
I’ll tell you what. The method of how to answer that things function is the secret to figuring out how to answer the question of God.
I don’t know what it’s function is, but it’s referred to as cyberware and is a common accessory in cyberpunk artwork.
Ah, gotchya.
Nah…she’s not interested in this site.
She says that no philosopher has ever produced philosophy under this method of logical analysis and finds most of the conversations to be trite going-on’s of ego.
I just show her your puzzles because she likes puzzles and I like riddles.
There is no THE answer. You know this.
There are answers to questions, but that doesn’t ‘close’ the question, so to speak.
The “why?” can never stop. As long as there are words and thought, there are questions.
The meaning of life is “love”?.. :-& bleh… I’m gonna barf… this is so stupid. 
Wrong. Sorry to say, but it’s not about you. I’m actually reaching out in hopes that you would understand that IF we have the ability to ask questions, we ALWAYS can ask question. You have admitted to this point already.
You have no place on a philosophy site. You’re philosophically barren. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Catch you later… much later… 
Bane, I really don’t mean to step on toes here, but regardless of what Ichthus is saying on the subject (haven’t really read it yet):
You seem to have a constant holding that religion is a school of reason and for the same purposes as the school of reason, but I pose that the two are for differing purposes and symbiotic in their nature.
Just a view to share.
Explain your view a little more. It sounds interesting, but I want to understand you better.
I would agree that philosophy and religion are symbiotic in ways. Religion comes about as an attempt to answer questions that we have pondered since we could ponder them. God is an incredibly important notion that arose out of pondering and questioning. It has remained with us since the notion was created and will likely continue to remain with us for a while. However, people like myself realize the reasons why we came up with the notion of God. We also understand the roles religion has played in shaping world history. Religions arose in all different kinds of cultures simultaneously. Notions of Gods arose simultaneously in different cultures; some with many gods, some with one, and some religions without gods. Though religions differ greatly, there are many things they have in common,; which is why we group them as religions.
Counter to popular belief, Religion is very healthy for the common person.
It provides a place of spiritual rest, not a place of psychotic illusion to replace practical and reasonable thought.
Granted, because the population, communication, and means of travel expands along with (in 1st world countries) the level of comfort, the extremists are more readily heard.
But you will only hear the extremist.
You won’t commonly hear the regular attendee to church, you won’t hear the casual visitor to the synagogue.
You won’t see the happy smile of a father walking to a temple to pay homage to Buddha in California after having a child born.
And you won’t hear the silent worship of a broken person, hiding in the back, that has found a small portion of hope in humanity after all.
Religion is not a philosophy in the sense that philosophy exists today.
Philosophy no longer aspires to evaluate life as a human being and arrive at an answer that will better help people live through a new perspective of living.
Those are now called, “self-help books” and not philosophy.
Instead of being similar to Taoism, Philosophy is now an evaluation of the unknown principles of man as an existence.
It has grown beyond the common man, and has surpassed concern of the common man.
Philosophy simply has no concern for the common man, his daily struggles, and how a view of the world may help the common man aspire to be more.
Philosophy has passed that and is now looking into the heavens and the inner deep of man’s psyche.
Religion, however, is still thinking on a rather crude and dumb level; the common man’s level.
It’s purpose isn’t to stimulate the brain and answer the questions of the universe.
It’s purpose is to provide a platform that man can find peace and value in; a place that man can appreciate himself beyond what he does, and a place to dream of the hope and good nature of humanity. It is a place of rest.
The two do not contest each other except when people attempt to force the two into each other’s categories.
As if Religion belongs answering the questions in today’s philosophy, or philosophy belongs in the world of religion.
Philosophy fights Religion, and Religion fights Philosophy, like the two are competing for members, yet neither conflict eachother.
By it’s nature, Philosophy is bound to examine the relationship between Religion, man, and history.
Just as it is a criminal detective’s nature to examine the relationship between a husband and wife.
Just as this insinuates no specific insult to the surviving spouse, this should not cause insult to Religion.
However, Religion attempts to pass many theologies off as philosophy in contest to the investigation, and they are clearly not.
They are not objective examination of an intangible process without bias consideration of the outcome.
They are bias as one can be for the purposes they provide.
Just as the surviving spouse will only see the murder as they wish to accept it for their personal desire.
Religion and Philosophy should be as separated as Church and State.
The respect between the two should be as equal as the respect between the air and a bird; even when the bird fights the air, it does not spite it.
Just as the criminal detective should respects the loss of the spouse, and the spouse should respect the position of the criminal detective.
There is no reason to constantly find fault.
Philosophy is not the religion of atheism, and Religions are not the thoughts of the ignorant.
Philosophy is not the revolutionary savior of man from tyranny, and Religion is not the Zion of damnation or else.
See the World with opinion.
Reason the World with Philosophy.
Feel the World with emotions.
Listen to the World with Religion.
Live the world with all of your senses.
Stumps
While I appreciate the poetic seperation of religion and philosophy as you have described it… I don’t think it’s a very useful view to take.
The fact of the matter is most Religions deal with the same questions as philosophy. It’s true that philosophers tend to delve deeper than the common man would be inclined to do… but what the philosophers build down there ends up being a platform that the common man can stand on… even if they don’t understand how it came to be… how to build the platform they stand on.
Marxism… captitalism… democracy… socialism…
Freedom of speach… freedom of religion… rule of law…
Morality… ethics… ontology… cosmology…
Logic… Mathematics… The scientific method…
All the above are platforms resting on the pillars of philosophy… That is to say under scrutiny they would only make sense in light of the underlying philosophical positions, asserted truths and justifications.
Religion asserts truthes that are in direct opposition to many of the positions that hold these structures together. And if the common religious man who stood on one such common platform yet accepted a truth for sake of his religion, if he were pressured to reconcile them either by his own desire for understanding or an outside group there is the chance that he would abandon the platform of reason… walk off the deep end and become what we consider “extremists”… but really… they are not extremists… they are the religious people who have the curage of their convictions. Who believe what they say, and say what they believe…
If truly I believed you were going to hell for not believing what I believe… and I knew that your words might alter the beliefs of my children and damn them too… I cannot think of a more aggressive act on your part than that of spreading concepts and ideas that can ONLY stand if my beliefs were discarded or ignored…
Conversly… I don’t see the merit of holding a belief (“spiritual” or otherwise) that I don’t act on or apply in my thinking and ponderings… The moderate who in one breath speaks of hellfire and eternal death for the non-believer in accord with the bible but turns in the next breath to approve the notion that his son not just has, but ought to have a legally protected right to commit spiritual suicide and be an atheist… He dosn’t lend much to those concepts he claims to hold. And he would be the one on weaker ground when faced with the “extremist” who preaches that men of good conscience ought to apply every pressure possible to keep this damning choice from being an option.
So while you’re position admirably attempts to seperate the two branches of thought and reason almost as if to seperate two fueding children… they are ultimately one and the same. You might as well be trying to seperate the two sides of a coin… while the coin is on edge both may persist… but apply the slightest pressure and only one will come out on top…
and it must not be religion… lest we revert to more primative creatures.
P.S. Sorry for imposing myself like this… feel free to ignore me…
– Bane
I was joking about you asking why so as to annoy me. Of course we can always ask questions. The “you” in “you ask too many questions” was, at that point, referring to ‘me’… in a joking manner.
You and Stumps (and now Mad Man P) enjoy your chat.
Ichthus, if you would rather, I can just PM Mad Man in response to his post. I don’t see a need for us to disrupt the thread if it isn’t what you were looking for for conversation.
Stumps,
I intended this thread to be more for riddles and stuff, but I didn’t want to be rude and interrupt your discussion. I think the discussion is interesting, though. Would you want to move it to the Reason for God (ONE) discussion thread?.. it’s pretty much on-topic.
I think I’ll get around to formatting that all down to express my thoughts on the subject and just make a new topic.
2 reasons:
Mad Man:
When I make a new topic in a day or a few day’s from now, if would please reply with the general gist of what you were saying here, I would be much appreciative of the time.
Of course, my opener will be slightly different than the post made here since it is an opener declaring a stance and view, rather than responding, so you may need to respond to the concept fresh over again (sorry).
Who said it?
What are the symbols for the letters of the alphabet that have not been used (if you crack the cipher, a little bit of thought about what connects the symbols representing the letters that ‘are’ used will lead you to that answer)? The name of this cipher is “Misplaced” as a clue.
Since I got a book with a collection of C.S. Lewis’ stuff, I no longer need my copy of “Mere Christianity” which is included in that collection. So… if you answer the two questions, you can have my copy of “Mere Christianity” if you want it. It’s good.
Nobody??
[size=200]ECHO[/size] [size=150]ECHO[/size] ECHO [size=85]ECHO[/size] [size=50]echo[/size]
This clue (to deciphering) is a dead give-away: keyboard.
Third and final clue (first two were “misplaced” and “keyboard”) – hands.
If nobody answers the two questions, I’ll post the answers as my final post in ILP.
New forum: http://www.ichthus.yuku.com.
I’ll miss you all. Be good to eachother.
<><