The Religious Discussion of 2012

[Sub-Husker]

I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

 

You talked of "proof".

[knapplc]

I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

 

You talked of "proof".

 

As have about a dozen other posts in this thread. It's just weird that you stuck that in there, and quoted me as if it was relevant to my post.

[Enhance]

I'm trying to figure out why you quoted my statements and responded with this. In no way was that directed at you, and in no way does what you posted have anything to do with what I wrote.

 

You talked of "proof".

 

As have about a dozen other posts in this thread. It's just weird that you stuck that in there, and quoted me as if it was relevant to my post.

I don't see the correlation, either. I think, maybe, he thought you were attacking his post? I didn't see it that way, though.

[Husker_x]

 

Earlier in this thread (or was it one of the other religious threads) I admitted that it was a best guest, and was unmeasurable with today's technology. I have also stated that there is no prrof of a supreme being, but by using logic it fit what had been scientifically observed and measured.

 

What you are doing is very childish. I have admitted over and over the limitations of proof in what I believe, but you keep insisting on firmer answers. Well I don't have the proof to give you, and I never said I did. And if you ask again I will give you a similar answer.

 

I also said that I could write a book on the subject, but did not have the time. I prefer to answer specific questions, and will do so to the best of my ability. But If I tell you I do not know, even after you keep asking me again and again I still won't know.

 

And whwn someone goes with phrases like "why you then heap on top of an admitted best guess", I figure that you have transitioned from curiosity mode to criticism mode. I believe that we are done here.

 

So in the end we're exactly where we started. Nothing new has been discovered. Nothing new has been demonstrated. All we have now is more mysteries on top of the first one, founded on nothing, and answering nothing.

 

I can suggest additional reading, but I doubt you're interested. You had already indicated that.

 

You sound like the type of person who would do better with a "faith in the box" religion, where someone spoon feeds you a few short explanations.

 

I am not familiar with your belief system. I can't recall talking with you about it in any detail. We might have discussed something about Christianity at some point, but to my knowledge that's about the extent of it.

 

Now I want you to pay careful attention to what you've done here. I asked you very directly for a definition of a term. You responded by telling me to read a book. I'm an avid reader, but I will admit that I have almost no interest in investigating your fringe belief system until I'm clear on a few basic points--e.g. what you believe in and what it means. If you happened to bring up interesting points or studies that have been done to verify what you say, and can recommend some reputable sources, I would probably be interested enough to at least put it on the list. But I asked you a very specific question (the kind you claim you want to answer), apparently (and unknowingly to me when I asked it) about something fundamental to your belief system. You replied vaguely, and then admitted you have no evidence anyway.

 

Which means we are done, but not for the reason you think. It's because we're not operating in the same world. If there are no set of facts in front of us, demonstrable statements about reality that we can both agree on, there's nothing to talk about. You accept magic; I don't. It's really that simple. I'm the sort of person that doesn't do well with faith-in-the-anything. I don't do well with faith, or credulity, as I like to call it. Whether it's the traditional faiths or the À la carte faiths, not interested. I want the arguments and evidence. Because, as you know, without either of those, all faiths are equal.

 

And I'm a skeptic--my curiosity is naturally laced with criticism.

[Sub-Husker]

As have about a dozen other posts in this thread. It's just weird that you stuck that in there, and quoted me as if it was relevant to my post.

 

Fine, I edited out your quote.

[knapplc]

As have about a dozen other posts in this thread. It's just weird that you stuck that in there, and quoted me as if it was relevant to my post.

 

Fine, I edited out your quote.

Too late. The damage to my reputation is already irreparable. Seppuku at dawn is the only way to save honor now.

[Sub-Husker]

Now I want you to pay careful attention to what you've done here. I asked you very directly for a definition of a term. You responded by telling me to read a book. I'm an avid reader, but I will admit that I have almost no interest in investigating your fringe belief system until I'm clear on a few basic points--e.g. what you believe in and what it means. If you happened to bring up interesting points or studies that have been done to verify what you say, and can recommend some reputable sources, I would probably be interested enough to at least put it on the list. But I asked you a very specific question (the kind you claim you want to answer), apparently (and unknowingly to me when I asked it) about something fundamental to your belief system. You replied vaguely, and then admitted you have no evidence anyway.

 

As I said, it was not the type of question that could receive a simple answer, so I suggested a book to help out while I was busy. If I have the name of an author and the name of a book, through the miracle of modern search enginmegs I can usually get alot of info on a topic. And I suspected the line above that I underlined, so I did not want to invest alot of time until I thought we could have an interesting conversation.

 

Which means we are done, but not for the reason you think. It's because we're not operating in the same world. If there are no set of facts in front of us, demonstrable statements about reality that we can both agree on, there's nothing to talk about. You accept magic; I don't. It's really that simple. I'm the sort of person that doesn't do well with faith-in-the-anything. I don't do well with faith, or credulity, as I like to call it. Whether it's the traditional faiths or the À la carte faiths, not interested. I want the arguments and evidence. Because, as you know, without either of those, all faiths are equal.

 

What is magic to you? I had never once mentioned that topic, so you impied my belief in it.

 

An I was very, very clear... my belief system has no proof/eveidence to it. Yet you kept asking for it. That is no way to initiate a conversation.

 

And I'm a skeptic--my curiosity is naturally laced with criticism.

 

Sceptacism is natural... shooting first is not.

[Sub-Husker]

Too late. The damage to my reputation is already irreparable. Seppuku at dawn is the only way to save honor now.

 

That, or you could wear an "I'm with Stupid" T-shirt for a day...

[Sub-Husker]

I don't see the correlation, either. I think, maybe, he thought you were attacking his post?

 

I didn't see it that way, though.

 

Nah, I just felt like attaching my next thought to something... it's that simple.

[walksalone]

 

Who is forcing anything? I'm on here giving evidence that Christianity is correct in its teachings and that the Bible, even though it has been tampered with over time and may not have 100% accurate translations, still has a lot of validity and truth. Take this for example:

 

Noah's Ark was found in the mountains in Turkey almost 13,000 feet up on Mount Ararat. The length matches the exact descriptions about how big the ark was, as well as where the Bible said that it came to rest. It is slightly distorted because an earthquake occurred a

This is what it looked like before the earthquake. Perfect in shape but almost completely covered by the earth. Scientific testing has showed that the structure is composed of decayed wood and metal rivets and fasteners, and carbon dating has estimated that it is about 4,800 years old.

 

I don't mean to be a nuisance, just trying to get my point across.

 

There are many people who don't think the evidence is relevant, and even more so who probably do not care.

 

As for me, organized religion is the most dangerous thing on this planet, next to Turkey Bacon, flavored beer, and vegetarianism. Religion and money are probably the two main contributing factors to war since man could form rational thoughts. Past 100 years, what have people been killing each other over?

 

When my father was 15 years old, he had some douchebag priest whack him in the nose with a bible, because he was reading a book, other than the bible. My father gave that priest two shots, one in the balls and one in the mouth. Over 10 years ago, I wanted to marry a girl that was Roman Cathoilc. I had to go see her family's priest. Within 15 minutes of talking to this douchebag, he'd called my Grandfather, a medicine man, a "heathen". Shortly after I grabbed him by the collar, informing him he had less than 3 seconds to start apologizing or I was gonna drag his ass out in the parking lot, and beat him like I was his goddamn dad.

 

These are just 2 small cases, that have led me to my utter disdain and distrust of any organized religion. You tell me your a man of the cloth, you've put yourself on par with a used car dealer. I have much more radical ways that I think religion should be dealt with, but that would get me ostracized from this board, faster than you can say "Clownahan".

 

So, it is great if you have faith, and it helps you get through the day, and picks you up when you are down. Good for you. Just keep it to yourself.

[HuskerShark]

 

Who is forcing anything? I'm on here giving evidence that Christianity is correct in its teachings and that the Bible, even though it has been tampered with over time and may not have 100% accurate translations, still has a lot of validity and truth. Take this for example:

 

Noah's Ark was found in the mountains in Turkey almost 13,000 feet up on Mount Ararat. The length matches the exact descriptions about how big the ark was, as well as where the Bible said that it came to rest. It is slightly distorted because an earthquake occurred a

This is what it looked like before the earthquake. Perfect in shape but almost completely covered by the earth. Scientific testing has showed that the structure is composed of decayed wood and metal rivets and fasteners, and carbon dating has estimated that it is about 4,800 years old.

 

I don't mean to be a nuisance, just trying to get my point across.

 

There are many people who don't think the evidence is relevant, and even more so who probably do not care.

 

As for me, organized religion is the most dangerous thing on this planet, next to Turkey Bacon, flavored beer, and vegetarianism. Religion and money are probably the two main contributing factors to war since man could form rational thoughts. Past 100 years, what have people been killing each other over?

 

When my father was 15 years old, he had some douchebag priest whack him in the nose with a bible, because he was reading a book, other than the bible. My father gave that priest two shots, one in the balls and one in the mouth. Over 10 years ago, I wanted to marry a girl that was Roman Cathoilc. I had to go see her family's priest. Within 15 minutes of talking to this douchebag, he'd called my Grandfather, a medicine man, a "heathen". Shortly after I grabbed him by the collar, informing him he had less than 3 seconds to start apologizing or I was gonna drag his ass out in the parking lot, and beat him like I was his goddamn dad.

 

These are just 2 small cases, that have led me to my utter disdain and distrust of any organized religion. You tell me your a man of the cloth, you've put yourself on par with a used car dealer. I have much more radical ways that I think religion should be dealt with, but that would get me ostracized from this board, faster than you can say "Clownahan".

 

So, it is great if you have faith, and it helps you get through the day, and picks you up when you are down. Good for you. Just keep it to yourself.

 

Sorry if anything has offended you, but everything I have said is good in nature. Sorry you have had bad experiences with priests, but what you're doing is making a generalization that in no way fits the whole of Christianity. I very much disagree with the concept of denominations within the religion of Chrisitanity, as it just separates people further. I do have my negative opinions about the Catholic denomination as a whole but in no way does that make me hatred of anyone who is Catholic.

 

But like I said, I'm not here to argue with you. I've put my two cents' worth and more into this topic and to be quite honest with you, I'm pretty tired of it, so I am very content right now to just let this topic slide down the board and never be looked at again.

[Husker_x]

Now I want you to pay careful attention to what you've done here. I asked you very directly for a definition of a term. You responded by telling me to read a book. I'm an avid reader, but I will admit that I have almost no interest in investigating your fringe belief system until I'm clear on a few basic points--e.g. what you believe in and what it means. If you happened to bring up interesting points or studies that have been done to verify what you say, and can recommend some reputable sources, I would probably be interested enough to at least put it on the list. But I asked you a very specific question (the kind you claim you want to answer), apparently (and unknowingly to me when I asked it) about something fundamental to your belief system. You replied vaguely, and then admitted you have no evidence anyway.

 

As I said, it was not the type of question that could receive a simple answer, so I suggested a book to help out while I was busy. If I have the name of an author and the name of a book, through the miracle of modern search enginmegs I can usually get alot of info on a topic. And I suspected the line above that I underlined, so I did not want to invest alot of time until I thought we could have an interesting conversation.

 

Which means we are done, but not for the reason you think. It's because we're not operating in the same world. If there are no set of facts in front of us, demonstrable statements about reality that we can both agree on, there's nothing to talk about. You accept magic; I don't. It's really that simple. I'm the sort of person that doesn't do well with faith-in-the-anything. I don't do well with faith, or credulity, as I like to call it. Whether it's the traditional faiths or the À la carte faiths, not interested. I want the arguments and evidence. Because, as you know, without either of those, all faiths are equal.

 

What is magic to you? I had never once mentioned that topic, so you impied my belief in it.

 

An I was very, very clear... my belief system has no proof/eveidence to it. Yet you kept asking for it. That is no way to initiate a conversation.

 

And I'm a skeptic--my curiosity is naturally laced with criticism.

 

Sceptacism is natural... shooting first is not.

 

The bolded sentence up there, based upon how this is progressing, is implying what you really mean is you're not interested in discussing your beliefs unless the person your talking to is receptive. Well, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that I am a disciple of reason. All of my beliefs on every subject are open to change or revision--provided you are able to offer evidence that makes a change reasonable. Which brings us to the bad news. You admit you cannot do this. Thank you for being open about that. It saves me some time. As for calling your belief system 'fringe', my intent wasn't to offend you, but it is an accurate description. There are thousands and thousands of fringe belief systems--some only having a single adherent--so if I'm going to use my time to research one, I need a hook, some interesting insight that makes pursuing this worthwhile. I'm still waiting.

 

Reincarnation, gods, and supernaturally created universes all fall under the umbrella of what I would consider magic: inexplicable supernatural forces acting upon the universe. Since you've already thrown out reason and evidence as means of justifying your beliefs, my default is to assume you accept magic in some form. Then you went ahead and linked me to a book called The Inner Temple of Witchcraft, which in the actual Amazon.com summary reads:

 

Explore your Inner Temple--your personal sacred space where there are no boundaries and all things are possible. With study, dedication, and practice, the lessons and exercises in this book will empower you to transform the repetitive rigors of the daily grind into a witch's web of magickal experiences.

 

Even in summary form, the book is a veritable buffet of Woo: astral projection, magical healing, spirit guides, etc. Maybe you meant to link to something else, because I don't play Dungeons and Dragons.

 

Skepticism involves the disbelief in a proposition until it has been sufficiently demonstrated. My prejudices, tone, mannerisms, or preconceptions have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of your claims. If you can reasonably support yourself, I will feel compelled to accept your position--and the same goes for every Christian, hard atheist, conservative, liberal, or pastafarian on this board. Unfortunately for you, however, that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We quite literally have nothing to talk about as far as your views are concerned. At least not until you vastly improve your ability to demonstrate your claims. I don't know what else you want me to say.

[Sub-Husker]

The bolded sentence up there, based upon how this is progressing, is implying what you really mean is you're not interested in discussing your beliefs unless the person your talking to is receptive. Well, I've got good news and bad news. The good news is that I am a disciple of reason. All of my beliefs on every subject are open to change or revision--provided you are able to offer evidence that makes a change reasonable. Which brings us to the bad news. You admit you cannot do this. Thank you for being open about that. It saves me some time. As for calling your belief system 'fringe', my intent wasn't to offend you, but it is an accurate description. There are thousands and thousands of fringe belief systems--some only having a single adherent--so if I'm going to use my time to research one, I need a hook, some interesting insight that makes pursuing this worthwhile. I'm still waiting.

 

You come across as a prick, so I'd rather than hold a conversation with you.

 

If you want a hook, try swimming around in a local river.

[Husker_x]

I'd sure have a better shot finding one that way, based off what I've seen so far.

[Sub-Husker]

I'd sure have a better shot finding one that way, based off what I've seen so far.

 

It's hard to find something when you don't want to find it... or if you insist on fining it after the person you want it from says it doesn't exist.

 

When you asked the first time I was reading chapter five of the book, and suggested that you look at it too. From there you made a few baseless assumptions. Good luck in finding something somewhere.