"Oh George...he's just a boy."

Roffleskates, I love it!

Roffleskates, I love it!
Roffleskates?!

It's roflcopter! :D

Roffleskates?!

It's roflcopter! :D
And lollerbates.

...

Lollerskates.

And lollerbates.

...

Lollerskates.
Lollerbates? Like... masturbates? :D

I guess that makes me the Menace of chat neo-cronyms.

"Why I never became a Atheist."

But; the two following statments seem mutually contradictory;

""I have a perception of past lives"".....

and...

""When we are reborn we start over: we carry...no experience...forward from any previous existence.
One thing I have never understood about re-incarnation is how, if one has no real memory or clear perception of who they were before, anyone "knows" they had those 'past lives'.

The term often used to describe those who have a sense of past lives, and hence put things into perspective more easlily than most, is "old soul." What in the world that actually signifies is beyond me, since all "souls" (I use "life spirits" to avoid confusion with the Christian teaching) are of equal age, if age even means anything in that context.

It is not memory--memory is a physical thing of the brain and is destroyed as the brain decays--either after death or in disease. The belief is that one influences the nature of one's life spirit as one lives and experiences: it manifests itself in a variety of ways in one's life, sometimes being much like actual memories, except that one knows it is different.

I think most of the stuff in the West about recalling past lives is either self-deception or flim-flam. Such phenomena are not reported in Asia--sometimes a child is reported to have memories of a previous life, but it is perceived to be washed away very early on.

For all I know what I perceive is also self-deception; I cannot really be sure, and so am not willing to stick my neck out claiming very much.

We live in a world where sure knowledge is an illusion; where we much operate on approximations and guesswork. We are so use to it we hardly notice, but it is the reality. This also applies to what we think about so-called "spiritual" matters. The pursuit of certainty is a mistake.

Yeah, I think they're full of shit too. They usually use it to describe a "spiritually evolved human being." It's a load of crap.
The correct term for the teaching as believed in Hinduism and Buddhism is "rebirth," which can maybe be seen as one form of "reincarnation," but which is really different. "Reincarnation" is a retun of a the person to live in a new body; "rebirth" is generally not seen as preserving the person but only that part of the person known as the "life sprit" (the source of sentience in an otherwise mechanical body).

I did not know that, Thislin. Thank you for the insight. Pardon me however, if I still think it's bullshit. I have seen firsthand, that all the people we think of as spiritually evolved, are merely roleplaying such people simply to get attention. Humanity is so full of this LARP bullshit that it's a wonder we ever get anything done at all, then I remember that the scoundrels that started all this crap used people for their own benefit, so at least something gets done.

As Voltaire put it, religion started when the first scoundrel met the first fool.

I did not know that, Thislin. Thank you for the insight. Pardon me however, if I still think it's bullshit. I have seen firsthand, that all the people we think of as spiritually evolved, are merely roleplaying such people simply to get attention. Humanity is so full of this LARP bullshit that it's a wonder we ever get anything done at all, then I remember that the scoundrels that started all this crap used people for their own benefit, so at least something gets done.

As Voltaire put it, religion started when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
I think you may be too critical of your fellow human beings. Three points:

First, it is not necessary to put the same interpretation on things that people who have experienced them apply. I have a good friend, a party member (and hence at least officially an atheist, but certainly intelligent and well educated--the party recruits such people), whose opinions and judgment are solid and sober and not self-aggrandizing; who nevertheless reports several disturbing encounters with ghosts.

Because he interprets his experiences as encounters with ghosts does not mean I have to interpret them that way--and my different interpretation does not mean that I think he is seeking attention or is fabricating things or even having an over-active imagination. I need only think that I wasn't there so I don't know what really happened.

Second, I think your attitude closes your mind to possibilities. The theorem is that any sufficiently complicated system will have characteristics that are not demonstrable from within the system. If that applies to something as straightforward as numbers, then surely it also applies to reality. Hence it is not just possible but maybe even probable that there are phenomena that are not demonstrable within science. Rather than apply a blanket rejection, I think it is wiser to just remain agnostic.

The third point I would like to make is that no knowledge is certain--therefore we are justified in accepting as knowledge things we do not have proof for (since we really have no proof of anything). What one person will accept naturally will differ from what another will accept, but we should all respect these differences without drawing adverse opinions of others.

Let me paraphrase, then respond:

1: We can never really know another person's experience. Therefore unprovable things will forever be impossible to disprove.

Certainly, I can accept this as generally valid. It doesn't, however, change anything. My problem is not with these spiritual things in question. I will forever let another person's experience remain their own.

My problem is with those scoundrels who would take that valid bit of logic, and use it to purport vast schemes of idiocy upon people, bilking them out of time, attention and money. What people want to believe is their own thing. But do you have any idea how much time and money and attention is wasted on foolish bits of fancy such as creating Fire/Air/Water/Earth diagrams to describe the metaphysics of everything in the whole world? Or discussing just the proper nature of the Trinity? It's needlessly pathetic, and people who not just engage in this sort of activity, but take advantage of the other weak people that do, need to be exposed for the frauds they are.

2: Complicated things might not all be completely predictable, and we shouldn't pretend they are.

Certainly, I can understand this bit of logic, and can see easily how things could be very different due to undiscovered facets of reality.

But let's get real. Scoundrels perpetuate spirituality, not undiscovered bits of reality. We're even cognitively wired for spiritual experiences. That weak point in our nature has been exploited time and time again for countless evil acts, from holy wars, to the Holocaust, to pedophilia.

But I digress. Point is, there is every bit of reason to think that humans themselves perpetuate spirit, not the actual nature of reality. This is very much evidenced in the unclaimed million dollar reward offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation. If there really was such a thing, someone would have found it by now, and collected on their prize.

3: No knowledge is certain, therefore we should not be critical of other's opinions.

I find this laughable, for immediately obvious reasons. I refuse to accept the lunacy of the Christian religion, and I will not put up with their proselytizing. They are doing positive damage to critical thinking in this country, and I applaud efforts by groups like the James Randi Educational Foundation to expose frauds for who they are.

If you ask me to be respectful, certainly, I would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie on the God issue. It's clearly too much hassle to fight this fight every day. I do not seek to convert people to atheism. But I will use Christian proselytizing as an opportunity to ridicule and expose that fraud for what it is. I will not stand for critical thinking to go, not just unheeded, but punished in this society!

But you ask me to "not draw adverse opinions of others." Simply because no knowledge is certain. It's a perversion of intelligent thought. Why should we be afraid to call out a fraud for what it is? Simply because of the idea that we might be wrong, and they might be right? Even if the chance is infinitesimal, and no new vindicating evidence is on the horizon?

Spirituality is a fraud. There might be natural phenomena that has so far gone unexplained, but when we find the explanations for them, I can guarantee you that spirituality won't be one of them. For the simple reason that it is unprovable. I deal with only provable, reproducible effects. Not every flight of fancy brought on by impressionable minds devoid of any inkling of critical thought.

There are scoundrels about, to be sure. You seem to feel this is what all religion represents, and I think that is not so. It may be that we would communicate better if you were careful with the word "religion," and, instead, limited your attack to those who demonstrate religiosity. This superficial religion--with large dollops of hypocrisy, pretense, flim-flam, superstition, prejudice and sentimentality, is an oft-seen and unfortunate aspect of much of religion.

Your last paraphrase may be a distortion. Let me paraphrase myself--nothing is certain: we are all persuaded of the truth or falsehood of a proposition by the evidence as we interpret it--influenced by our personality and our world view and so on. Therefore we need a good deal of humility in thinking that what we think is true and what others think is false.

For this reason, for the most part I don't concern myself so much with truth as with help and harm. Even there we can never really be sure, but there are some teachings that do seem to cause more harm than good.

There is a Pali word 'Sati,' usually translated "mindfulness," but that misleads a little. It means awareness combined with seeing without judgment. Propositions are best viewed "mindfully," meaning we are not naive about them, see them clearly, but at the same time we do not decide truth and falsehood, goodness and evil, beauty and ugliness, nor even harm and help. Such judgments only get in the way of our seeing them clearly.

Ultimately, if we are compassionate, we do have to try to judge harm and help, but even then only reluctantly and only when necessary.

Thislin, if you were to cleanse every bit of bullshit out of religion, what would you have left? Don't tell me, spirituality, because that's a fraud too, hallucinations thrown up by the mind that are every bit as reproducible with drugs and meditations as scientific phenomena.

Thislin, I've flirted with spirituality my entire life. I recognize the value in what you call mindfulness, and compassion, and innocence. I took pains to incorporate them into my life, some time ago, when I was involved in a new age "pagan" faith.

Now, I give these people a wide berth, I try to stay away from their innocence, and allow them to explore their religion in peace, when they aren't acting up. They are exhibiting the good aspects of religion, as well as the bad. Christians on the other hand, seem obsessed with divisive power-mongering over all around them. My own mother recently told me of the misadventures she's been having looking around for a church. Seems there's very few of the realistic, innocent, and compassionate Christians left, and all of them are the type that want more than just your presence and your support. She keeps her faith though, and I suppose that's a good thing.

Now, you bring up a concept I had to really come to grips with after I dropped New-Ageism. Defining words and such. For awhile, that became my new religion, figuring out what everything means, and making definitions where most people would just think everything's been said.

Turns out, people cannot use this tool we call language very well. It seems to be at the very foundation of human suffering in the western world. I made it my business to find out what we're actually saying when we bother to open our mouths. I'm still doing it to a certain degree, but other pursuits have taken it's place as of late.

I would like it if you, Thislin, could become a monk of the written and spoken word. Find out exactly what you mean when you talk about religion. Stop at nothing until you get a precise definition. The answers may well surprise you.

It is interesting to watch what I say being interpreted through eyes that have been in new-Ageism, something that never attracted me. I think what I say is colored by your experience, and that prevents mindfulness. I must admit some ignorance of these trendy American movements--my perception is of cultists borrowing some superficial things from Buddhism for personal purposes, but I am probably seriously wrong.

I was a "businessman" most of my career, managing software and programmers and being interested in profit and loss. Rather Confucian, in fact, although I had no idea of it. Now I am retired and can sit back and contemplate my navel, and I see things with more detachment.

For example, the Christian power hunger that you speak of is obvious enough--after all, the promise is the "Kingdom." They may even succeed--a break-off cult from Christianity (Islam), after all, succeeded in destroying Buddhism in much of what was then India (Pakistan and Afghanistan and Western India today). It was achieved with what would today be called genocide.

Buddhism will probably one day disappear from the planet--mainly because it has the detachment necessary to not really do much to defend itself. Conflicts happen when people defend themselves--everyone is defending himself, often by attacking others.

In the meantime we have the simple fact that religions do a great deal of good in the world. I have seen it all my life, even though my wife and I were never particularly into it ourselves. I repeat what I said before--the bad things that religions do get a lot of press while the day-to-day pastoral work of thousands of dedicated men and women very much gets ignored by the world.

One other aspect of religion that I might draw your attention to--the aesthetic aspects. The art and architecture and music is just part of it, and by making religious art into a secular art form, the entire thrust of the artist is lost. Ritual and pilgrimage and prayer and chant, whether done for its own sake or done for some magical purpose, has positive emotional effects on us.

Since neither of us credit magic with physical effectiveness, we can observe the behavior, even when we participate, with detachment, and still gain the pluses that are in it for ourselves. I suspect this seems incomprehensible to you, and that is fine too, except I am sorry that this particular gem is, for now, unavailable for you to enjoy. There are many gems in the world, and I am sure I also miss my share.

I think it is interesting, not that you would say my opinions of what you say being colored by my experience, that much is obvious, but that you would accuse me of a lack of "mindfulness," because of it. Instead of using a word with a more universally accepted meaning, you used "mindfulness."

That stands out to me. I am not terribly interested in this "mindfulness" you seek. I already know what it is, so don't try to tell me I don't. But what intrigues me is that you used a word within your own system of thought to judge me with, who does not share your system.

If you meant to say that I'm not qualified to make a sound judgment because of it, well, I'll answer that when you accuse me of it. I will hold off on assuming your intent, as I know many people wouldn't.

Buddhism will probably one day disappear from the planet--mainly because it has the detachment necessary to not really do much to defend itself. Conflicts happen when people defend themselves--everyone is defending himself, often by attacking others.
I think you would be surprised of the violence members of your faith are capable of committing. I'm sure Blob will chime in with more information, and therefore save lazy old me from the task of googling it, but let's just say that there is nothing magical about Buddhism that makes people more or less willing to defend themselves, or attack others, if the need possessed them. Martyrdom your religion's adherents will not achieve.

As for the aesthetic aspects, I am reminded of the game of marbles. People, mostly children, play it, and practitioners are eventually able to do quite some amazing things with these marbles. But most people give up the pursuit as they age. It isn't so with religion, yet the pursuit remains just as childish in it's adulthood as it was in it's own childhood, masquerading as make-believe.

Now, there's some great benefits to be had from a bit of make believe, the emotional effects you speak of. But they are the same benefits as any more adult pursuit has. It is the adults that fail at producing the positive emotional benefits from their adult pursuits, not the pursuit itself. Since they fail at cultivating happiness in their lives, they seek happiness in some other, more magical, divine world.

Done in an adult fashion, even fantasy and make believe can be amazing, as the movie, "Pan's Labyrinth," illustrates. It's just a shame that religion fails to use that same sense of self-acknowledgment to achieve the same amazing-ness.

That said, certain "faiths" accept their own inherent futility, such as the Church of the SubGenius. Those, more adult, pursuits provide fruits of intellectual, as well as emotional, nature, and the rewards are much more rich than religion could ever be.

I am going to take a breather to give you a little while to find yourself. There is too much hate in your last message for me to even try to respond. I am sorry.

I'm sure Blob will chime in with more information, and therefore save lazy old me from the task of googling it, but let's just say that there is nothing magical about Buddhism that makes people more or less willing to defend themselves, or attack others, if the need possessed them.Well I could offer some vague mutterings about militant Buddhists in Sri Lanka (literally militant as in guns and bombs) but other than that would have to google myself.

I am going to take a breather to give you a little while to find yourself. There is too much hate in your last message for me to even try to respond. I am sorry.

Huh? What hate? I read through his post and it seemed a quite unemotional straightforward response.

Yeah I'm at a loss too.

I am going to take a breather to give you a little while to find yourself. There is too much hate in your last message for me to even try to respond. I am sorry.
This one makes the user title!

I don't know how you can say there is no hate in your message. Think back at the emotions you experienced when you were typing in. I can read, perhaps better than you can, what is behind words. Here are some examples:

"I am not terribly interested in this "mindfulness" you seek." [Nothing more than a bit of unnecessary rudeness.]

or, "I think you would be surprised of the violence members of your faith are capable of committing." [What is achieved bringing that up, even if it is true?]

or, "Now, there's some great benefits to be had from a bit of make believe." [Why "make believe." Can't you see what a rude distorition that choice of words represents?]

With things like these in your messages, I really see no point in our engaging each other, at least on this thread. I was where you are for maybe as long as a year back in college, so, although I am certainly willing to be shown otherwise, I really don't see where I have anything to learn from you, and I can see you would not be able to learn anything from me.

Napster,

At long last you have been exposed as a closed-minded hate monger (I always suspected as much).

Shame on you. :eek:

I was where you are for maybe as long as a year back in college, so, although I am certainly willing to be shown otherwise, I really don't see where I have anything to learn from you, and I can see you would not be able to learn anything from me.Yeah, just grow up Napster you rude little child, you! lol

That is not what I said, although I will admit he was getting tiresomely sophomoric. That you read it that way tells me you aren't far beyond him either.

Napster,

At long last you have been exposed as a closed-minded hate monger (I always suspected as much).

Shame on you. :eek:
That was a little sad. I went to an effort to show you where you were being hateful. I even provided three specific examples, in the now obviously vain hope that you had something of an open mind and would see it. Instead you come back with that.

The world is what it is, and unfortunately some people are like you. All I can do is knock.

That you read it that way tells me you aren't far beyond him either.See that, Napster? I'm beyond you; not far, but I am beyond you. Not my words - those of an objective independent observer. Naw! Naw! :D

Thislin, we were simply having an argument. You really need to understand that nothing inside an argument means anything. All it is is a play with words and pretended emotion. You chose to come on to allforums, which is a debate forum, mind you, to pursue your task of "learning" me, about spirit and faith. Not to debate. That is where you went wrong.

By treating this debate forum as an opportunity to really get through to people, you are putting the cart before the horse. How can I, who does not know you, or your teachings, know whether I should listen to you?

A debate can be pursued in many different ways. I have learned a good many of them, so I can be a fearsome opponent at times. It isn't to be worried, though, one can simply concede a loss and all will be well. Instead of conceding, you are taking this personally, and instead destroying your own credibility by claiming that I am hateful and sophomoric and childish.

Sadly, this is all too often the standard response by members of faith when they lose against better-equipped atheist adversaries.

Sadly, this is all too often the standard response by members of faith when they lose against better-equipped atheist adversaries.
He didn't "lose" against you Napster.

p.s.- Thislin, Blob and sedan were making jokes. We all know that Napster is rude and immature. He does it on purpose, and it's not really a big newsflash. :D

Sweetie, with all due respect, what the hell are you smoking? People do win, and lose these things, you know. That's one of the primary reasons people choose to enter into a debate. To win. If you cannot win, what's the point? Does everything really must fit this cheesy, "Everybody wins, we're just having a discussion," fluffy bunny mindset?

By reducing Thislin to making personal attacks and emotional pleas, I clearly won the debate.

Sweetie, with all due respect, what the hell are you smoking? People do win, and lose these things, you know. That's one of the primary reasons people choose to enter into a debate. To win. If you cannot win, what's the point? Does everything really must fit this cheesy, "Everybody wins, we're just having a discussion," fluffy bunny mindset?

By reducing Thislin to making personal attacks and emotional pleas, I clearly won the debate.
Who won or lost is subjective. I don't think the discussion has been finished yet, so you haven't won yet. And also, you always use personal attacks. Does that mean you always lose? I thought you said in another thread that people don't respect anyone who doesn't make personal attacks during a debate. You seem to be changing your position so that you can be "right" all the time.

Sure, it's subjective, the winning/losing thing. But not as subjective as you seem to think. Community standards exist on this sort of thing, and using those standards, I won. I do use personal attacks, but when I'm debating, I never fill up an entire post with them without making any points. If a person chose to ignore every point of an appropriately long post, to inappropriately harp on one minor point, then fill the rest up with invective, that's a serious misstep, but not the end of the debate. If the entire structure of the debate falls apart, because you failed to hold up your end of it, then you lost.

Keep a keen eye towards the mechanics of these things, DF. If you can learn how they work, then you'll be able to better judge these things, and use them in your own discussions.

He didn't "lose" against you Napster.

p.s.- Thislin, Blob and sedan were making jokes. We all know that Napster is rude and immature. He does it on purpose, and it's not really a big newsflash. :D
It is too bad that people like Napster give atheism a bad name <grin>. The business of winning and losing is a sad example of a mind set that is the same as the fundamentalist Christian--call it "fundamentalist atheist."

It is frustrating, though, but I got over it in about five minutes.

I am sorry sir but you did not reduce me to making personal attacks. I just observed something I was able (and later did) demonstrate--that you are full of hate for anything that differs from your personal views.

The only other time I have run into someone who thinks of debates as something one "wins" or "loses" was in a discussion with a creationist. You are really the same, just with a different label.

Who won or lost is subjective. I don't think the discussion has been finished yet, so you haven't won yet. And also, you always use personal attacks. Does that mean you always lose? I thought you said in another thread that people don't respect anyone who doesn't make personal attacks during a debate. You seem to be changing your position so that you can be "right" all the time.
In a given discussion there can be two winners (if there is an exchange of ideas) or two losers (as I think may have happened here, since I came away frustrated and he doesn't know how to exchange ideas and so gains nothing) but I don't think there can ever be a winner and a loser.

Thislin, for the "fundamentalist atheist," thing, I will tell you what I really think about you.

You seem to be just as disgusted with Christianity as I am. But you didn't want to give up on the land of fantasy and make believe just yet. No, instead you shopped around for religions, the same way my mom shops around for Christian churches, and settled on Buddhism. Now, you're bright and doe-eyed about the whole deal, and any attacks you perceive to your faith, well, obviously they must be so full of hate that they "just don't get it."

You think yourself as better than the Christians. You think you have found a better faith. You run from admitting it, but you have not escaped the invisible pecking order humans apply to everything. Buddhists think themselves better than Non-Literal Christians, who in turn think themselves better than Literal Christians.

Your flawed sense of justice, which comes from being unable to escape the land of make believe, having swapped gold buddhas for wooden crosses, leads into the similarly fairy-land notion that it is possible for people to escape their animal nature. Instead of, like me, immersing yourself in the moment, and allowing you to feel the pure joy of the competitive spirit, knowing it will all be well in the end, You hide from it, and retreat into your shell, cutting yourself off from the real emotional benefits that come from acknowledging who we are as human beings.

In this way, you have become exactly the same person as me, just one who hides behind all of the great-sounding things that holy sham men of the past have said, putting out this peaceful aura that is so easily pierced, that you might as well have been practicing Islam. Which is strange, because I've met Muslims who were much, much more peaceful in the face of attacks than any Buddhist I've seen.

I think the vast majority of Christians are great people, centered by a faith based on love and a wonderful hope. This is much more than atheism offers, with its silly skepticism and arrogant mockery of others' beliefs. Truth is valuable, but it is not the only thing, and since no one has a monopoly on truth anyway, how can you be so sure you are so right?

So I do not think myself better than Christians. I appreciate Buddhism because of its consistency with cosmology, psychiatry, biology, and so on. Therefore it works for me, with my geeky personality and scientific background: but that it works for me does not mean I think it has to work for everyone. There are usually many roads to a given destination--some only taking longer than others.

(Of course I also appreciate the thousand plus years of introspective experience that Buddhism has on offer--I alluded to ancient wisdom but you seem to think that is all garbage.)

Your rush to judgment is perhaps best demonstrated by your use of the terms "land of make believe," when you don't know at all what I believe. That I speak in terms of myth and allegory and legend and metaphor seems out of your ken, but that is entirely your loss. I am only less interested in debating points than I am in achieving genuine understanding--and I have to tell you that to "know" a fact is but the first step in understanding it.

You do seem full of hate. Why do you have to put your efforts at humiliating me in boldface type? It is a form of shouting in print, so I ask why do you shout? Do you know why?

Look, nothing offers more than anything else. Buddhism does not offer more than atheism, it does not offer more than Christianity. Everything offers exactly the same thing, nothing.

I boldface my humiliating efforts for emphasis. I do not want to be misunderstood. If you had read the words without the emphasis, you might have come about a different conclusion. Boldfacing is one way, italicizing is different. I chose the boldface because I wanted the words to have exactly that impact, as if I were shouting at you. I do not wish to be misunderstood, you see.

Oh, I know all about myth and allegory and legend and metaphor. There was a time in my life where I probably could have jousted with you in the allegorical terms. I might still be able to do so. I just lost my taste for it.

The search for truth in religion can be alluded to similar efforts in the area of martial arts. Everyone wants to know how to better kick another person's ass. They will dream up elaborate systems of fighting, like Wing Chun, that they will refuse to enter into competitions because they claim it is too powerful, that they will hurt other people too badly.

It's bullshit. All the other systems of martial arts, they're complete and utter bullshit, if they refuse to spar with full resistance. If you cannot make your system work against a resisting opponent, one who is really trying to kick your ass, why do you think you can charge $100+ a month for the privilege of learning a game of marbles? Now, they think of new things to overcharge for, belts, gis, all the trappings of martial arts and trading on the power of these "ancient secrets," which they cannot prove has any merit whatsoever.

It is the exact same way with religion, only there's no kicking of other people's asses to determine if you're actually any good at it or not. All we have in the land of religion and make believe is the debate, the pointed discussion where each person tries to dislodge the other person's views on reality. If you cannot make your religion stand up to heated attack, is it really worth believing in? Do you really understand anything about your faith?

If you cannot remain calm in the face of others, who would bring what you term as "hate" to the table, if you cannot answer them rationally, if the first response is "OMG why do you hate me so much?!?" then what about your religion is worth believing in?

If you cannot use such ancient wisdom to convince me, what is the worth of your wisdom? What is so much better about it than everything else? Nothing.

Sure, it's subjective, the winning/losing thing. But not as subjective as you seem to think. Community standards exist on this sort of thing, and using those standards, I won.

You may be right about there being community standards, but how does that translate into you declaring yourself the "winner"?


I do use personal attacks, but when I'm debating, I never fill up an entire post with them without making any points.

Horsehockey.


Actually, it speaks volumes about the fact that you're a stupid cow.

What profound point were you attempting to make with that post?


Keep a keen eye towards the mechanics of these things, DF. If you can learn how they work, then you'll be able to better judge these things, and use them in your own discussions.

DF, you're doing fine. You're debating style and grasp of the "mechanics" needs no improvem,ent IMO.

You may be right about there being community standards, but how does that translate into you declaring yourself the "winner"?



Horsehockey.



What profound point were you attempting to make with that post?



DF, you're doing fine. Ypu're debating style and grasp of the "mechanics" needs no improvem,ent IMO.
And here, we have again, an example of people not being able to make their sense of justice and crap work in the real world. And Vile's an atheist. Just goes to show you that a predelectation for make-believe does not stop at religious lines.

All that happens when you insist on believing in such tripe is you being frustrated and angered and stuff when it doesn't work. You keep insisting others believe in your version of whatever it is you're making objective judgments about. Vile takes his position of moderator entirely too seriously, so he chooses to insinuate himself on everyone else who doesn't feel exactly the same way that he does about that one issue.

Only Vile doesn't stop at making personal attacks. He follows through with threats to ban, erasing posts, whining about how people aren't respecting his authority, the whole bid-ness. It is the same response my mom received at all the churches she went to when they wanted 100% of her time and effort to go towards the church and God. When she disagreed with them on that minor point, they got all snippy and arrogant and demanding, until she was forced to head for higher ground against the legion of idiots.

I am choosing not to leave AllForums for higher ground, instead fighting for the community I took extreme pains to enter, even against all the friends I made here who choose to "play it safe" and agree with Vile until I can convince them otherwise. Because AllForums is not chock-full of idiots, and it's easy to see that most people, even if they cannot bring themselves to agree with me in public, at least do not join in with the diatribe of those select few who cannot stand to have their opinions challenged.

If I get banned, well, at least I fought the good fight and learned some things about how to spar. But I am choosing to fight against resisting opponents, and not to limit myself to sticky-hands.

Sticky-Hands: A thoroughly worthless exercise in which participants stick their wrists together and try to hit each other without using force. It's seductive in it's initial appeal, because most people haven't seen anything like it before. But it does nothing for the fighting arts. Without full-resistance training, no art can be said to be of any use whatsoever.

And here, we have again, an example of people not being able to make their sense of justice and crap work in the real world. And Vile's an atheist. Just goes to show you that a predelectation for make-believe does not stop at religious lines.

I have no idea what you're getting at here Napster, care to explain?


All that happens when you insist on believing in such tripe is you being frustrated and angered and stuff when it doesn't work. You keep insisting others believe in your version of whatever it is you're making objective judgments about. Vile takes his position of moderator entirely too seriously, so he chooses to insinuate himself on everyone else who doesn't feel exactly the same way that he does about that one issue.

I'm also a poster here Napster. Care to answer my post, or are you just going to claim I was being a moderator and unfairly "insinuating" myslef?


Only Vile doesn't stop at making personal attacks.

Care to show me where I attacked you in this thread?


He follows through with threats to ban, erasing posts, whining about how people aren't respecting his authority, the whole bid-ness.

Care to show me where I did that?


I am choosing not to leave AllForums for higher ground, instead fighting for the community I took extreme pains to enter, even against all the friends I made here who choose to "play it safe" and agree with Vile until I can convince them otherwise.

Good luck with that. Care to answer the questions I asked?


Because AllForums is not chock-full of idiots, and it's easy to see that most people, even if they cannot bring themselves to agree with me in public, at least do not join in with the diatribe of those select few who cannot stand to have their opinions challenged.

I'm the one challenging your opinion here and you are the one posting an irrelevant diatribe...care to respond to what I posted?


If I get banned, well, at least I fought the good fight and learned some things about how to spar.

If you get banned, it won't be for "fighting the good fight". Why all the talk of banning? Planning some outrage?


But I am choosing to fight against resisting opponents, and not to limit myself to sticky-hands.


Sticky hands are the Devil's workshop. ;-)

I want proof dammit!

Nah.

Please don't put words in my mouth Napster. It's unseemly, and beneath you.

I was merely responding to your assertion that you don't make personal attacks unless you also make a point. I see you can't refute that.

Oh, if you wanted to say that, why did you put it in a thousand accusatory words? That last post would have done it.

I do make personal attacks without a point. Mostly to people like Decka and Dharmabum and Frogger when it seems like all they are bringing to the table is ignorance. If one wants to debate, then I will debate. But if all you want to do is whine and bitch, I will treat it for what it is. I do not feel it is necessary to discuss with a wooden post. You seem to think it is, and worse, are incapable of determining who talks like a wooden post and who doesn't.

Would someone explain why a God would need a universe?

Would someone explain why a God would need a universe?The universe is God's television set.

He needs something to watch to pass the time. :)

That's a good question Dan - got no answer for you

The universe is God's television set.

He needs something to watch to pass the time. :)
If Madden gets to do commentary on the games God watches, I understand why He is such a wrathful guy.

Would someone explain why a God would need a universe?
The easy and obvious answer is that God doesn't need anything--that the universe exists because God is Love, and therefore shares existence.

Thislin, I've heard responses like yours very often when I discuss religion with theists. I have a few questions about it though.

The easy and obvious answer is that God doesn't need anything--that the universe exists because God is Love, and therefore shares existence.

You're quite right than an omniscient and omnipotent being would not need anything, but that is not a reason for God to create anything.

Love is an emotion, something cannot be love. What do you mean by 'God is love'? Perhaps you meant to say that 'God loves' instead of 'God is love', but that has a problem with it too. Love is a personal attachment, or a deep affection for something, but before God created anything, there was nothing else - so there would be nothing for God to love either. The concept of love cannot exist if there is nothing.

Thislin, I've heard responses like yours very often when I discuss religion with theists. I have a few questions about it though.



You're quite right than an omniscient and omnipotent being would not need anything, but that is not a reason for God to create anything.

Love is an emotion, something cannot be love. What do you mean by 'God is love'? Perhaps you meant to say that 'God loves' instead of 'God is love', but that has a problem with it too. Love is a personal attachment, or a deep affection for something, but before God created anything, there was nothing else - so there would be nothing for God to love either. The concept of love cannot exist if there is nothing.
Don't assume I'm a theist; I just tire of the attacks people constantly make against theism, when they are really easily answered.

The expression "God is Love" means as much or as little as it means. We don't know what "Love" is--it is not really an emotion--I would say compassion or sympathy or maybe even empathy are emotions, but love seems to be something different.

I think when the Christian tells us that "God is Love," what they are saying is that in their faith this is part of the definition of God's nature--that they can trust that he will do the lovingmost thing.

That makes sense to me--I would far rather live in a universe where God's beneficience is assured than one where it is in doubt.