Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

1080656 Posts in 71527 Topics- by 19059 Members - Latest Member: francesco.ro79
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 566
61  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:20PM
My what?
 I don't think you understand my application of these terms very well. You've just seen me use them so you think using them on me is more or less the same, which is what indicates you don't really understand how/why they apply. That's very reactionary and defensive, which is an effect of precisely what I'm talking about when I point out how/why those terms apply to you.
 Just because you don't get it doesn't make it gibberish--kind of like just because it sounds good to you doesn't mean it's really relevant, or coherent, or English.
 Yeah, I realize you choose not to understand that whole shtick as well. Not sure, but I kinda suspect you realize at least to some extent what's going on--you just don't like what it says about you and yours (i.e. my fans).
 It amuses me when you post writing advice and such (it's kind of almost endearing in fact). That's partly because I remember one of your very first posts was about how you couldn't understand my posts very well and that was intimidating. I really did want to soothe your angst, but I couldn't tell you anything to fix the problem then, and I still can't now. I do know pretending you're capable of judging such things with reasonable competency isn't going to help though (anyone who is competent will see the Dunning-Kruger Effect thing in action, even if they're not familiar with the Dunning-Kruger Effect).
You killed another thread. This was about discussing God not about analyzing the contributors. Congrats.
62  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:03PM
I don't have a college degree. Part of the consequence of that is that I speak only one language well.

I'm still ahead of you by one.
No need to explain. I could tell you didn't.
Apparently Byron has two fans.
63  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 08:57PM
https://youtu.be/FZaU3xnn_Dw<a href="" target="_blank"></a>
64  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 08:17PM

Well, criticism can be hard on people who don't take the responsibility to do it themselves for sure.
They tend to be very fragile about it, and when they're also incurious and self-oblivious they don't understand what actually bothers them and tend to project a lot (or is that allot in Authoritarian)?
I think this is #12 or #13 as far as meta issue posts, by the way (and several for you now as well--noting that because I doubt you realize it, and I'm certain you of course want an accurate sense of it). Wouldn't want any of my fans to lose count. I think they're trying to understand what meta posts are and why they're the only ones who seem not to understand them or why they're always relevant (whether or not one agrees with them). Not sure, but most of that's pretty evidently the case at any rate ... except for the trying to understand part ... which would be quite out of character. Yeah. Guess that doesn't work very well after all. So never mind--I was thinking of people who are interested in what's real and true rather than pretty exclusively what they've already decided on that count.
You do realize I'm criticizing your weighting. Right? Why are you so fragile? Why so intellectually dishonest? Why not direct your criticism, without the jibbetish, to the person you are criticizing? On topic of course.?
BTW, your only fan is Bill apparently
Try writing without the jibbetish. It will make you sound smart.
65  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 06:31PM
Nicely put.
Of course.  Having that extensive college education I knew you'd appreciate my comment.
66  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 04:26PM
I like Byron's posts.  I learn quite a bit from him.  He frequently gets involved with the discussion too, and it is usually well argued.  No issue here.
I don't. They are to wordy and self serving and boorish. (I borrowed that word from another member). It would be nice if he directed his criticism towards the person he's criticizing and would Not try to be a novice psychologist.  Let him analyze you for a few years. It's tiresome.
67  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 02:16PM
That person chooses to see what validates his/her personal sentiments, and quite more than likely what s/he has been trained to believe through socialization, and s/he doesn't have the current capacity to see through that to the actual evidence. In short, it's not your problem--it's his/hers.
 That extreme a view against humanity is plainly ridiculous. Even the nastiest primates do better than what that sounds like, assuming of course you're accurate about what s/he thinks. Sounds very likely he/she has just taken a hard line in order to accommodate/validate those personal sentiments, and if you were challenging him/her then it seems very likely s/he is big on digging in and doubling down (just one of the vagaries of human brain ownership) and is either unaware of that, or in denial about it.
The pseudo psychological rambling is unnecessary. Why do you incessantly feel like you have to analyze people. That should be in the TOU. "No analyzing"    Cant Bill decide for himself?
Please address who you are talking about to that person rather than about someone to another person. It's more polite.
68  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 02:12PM

That only works if you simply define the problem away though--if you decide, basically, that overly specific principles define True Christians™, so those who don't agree in a high degree of detail with these overly specific principles are True Christians™ and anyone who doesn't isn't (i.e. it's a no true Scotsman fallacy).
You have a hard time writing simply. Get the point without being boorish. Less commas and parentheticals would be better and you wouldn't get marked down so much and others might respond more often.  Don't you.
TM?  Really?
D- is the best I can give you. At least the spelling is correct.
69  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 01:16PM
I would argue you choose your own ethics as well. You may not create them wholesale, but by choosing your religion, you have chosen your set of ethics. Particularly if you have experienced many different religions and identified most with the values and practices of one or several over others. You are making your own personal value judgement of what they have to say. Is that not choosing your own ethics?
most Christian religion are based on the same principles and the difference in ethics is almost unrecognizable.
70  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 12:01PM
I can't recommend it.  They don't have pews, you have to stand, and the service is long

Not entirely true.  I married a Greek Orthodox. Married in a Greek Orthodox church in New York. And I've attended mass in at least three other GO churches. You do stand a lot. There are pews in all the ones I've been to. It's anywhere from 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours because lots of things are done three times (Trinity Bill).  Lots of Greek. No statues. Just iconostasis.  It's a beautiful mass with a good chanter.  I recommend it.
71  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 11:15AM

It's intense intellectual cowardice (intellectual cowardice being the unwillingness to honestly/actually face opposing viewpoints).
You're just beyond silly Byron.
72  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 11:09AM
I wouldn't, no.  I was just asking for verification of a point from Bob's perspective.

I have noticed you and Bob don't answer questions posed against some to the principles you hold up.  Neither of you discuss things or uphold intellectual integrity.  You argue pugilistically ignoring the questions of others and responding to their statements with wild and contrived concepts outside the line of thought posed as leading questions which apparently can never be answered as the responses just get exactly the same treatment leading the discussion off track.
Try me  I'll be happy to answer.
73  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:46AM
Well, that begins the discussion on what ethical behavior is.

If someone has a code of ethics that allows him to sleep around, beat folks up and verbally abuse old ladies then he is behaving ethically if he does those things.  However, that does not stop me and you from denouncing his behavior based on our ethics.  Further, beating people up and verbally abusing people are generally against the law where you and I live.  According to my personal secular code of ethics (my concern for the well-being of others) it would be my responsibility to report his behavior to the police.
But other non illegal things are ok according to each individuals ethics?
74  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:44AM
This is why I do so much meta-criticism in here--people acting in bad faith without the self-awareness and/or applied reasoning skills to realize it setting the social climate and destroying most if not all potential for genuine discussion.
When a given apologetic argument fails there's no consideration or learning, that argument is simply tossed aside and another goes out. When that argument faith there's no consideration or learning, that argument is simply tossed aside and another goes out ... etc. That's just one feedback loop that reliably goes on with certain "participants" which makes only for contrarianism--certainly not actual discussion.
This is a kind of ablative armor thing, and it absorbs all effort to have genuine discussion, all but completely disbursing that effort's energy into their armor system. When it gets bad enough it becomes what Tim has dubbed "denial of service attacks". There's no desire or intent to allow any actual discussion to take place from these "participants", only to reject, refuse, deflect, dissemble, do whatever to pretend they're fielding opposing viewpoints and refuting them--doesn't matter how comically little resemblance that may have to reality. The issue though, is that there's a lot of energy absorbed in this effort, and all of it guaranteed not to go into anything remotely resembling genuine or honest discussion. Yet we get this pattern over and over and over and over and over ... and it always succeeds, whether the issue is religion or politics or whatever sacred cows these disingenuous actors are compelled to protect from honest evaluation. There's something in human nature that compels far too many to "engage" in these feedback loops. I think this probably has a lot to do with the condition of our current social climate and how it's deteriorated so much over the last few decades, somehow under the vast majority's radar it would seem.
75  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:35AM
No, go back and read what BillO said a little more carefully.

He did NOT blame Christianity or any other religion.

He said people made an individual choice to not follow what were presumably the precepts of their faith.  That's not the same as saying their faith tenets advocated that behavior.  (although there are some denominations that have never met a war they didn't like) 

This does seem to be an area where there would be a clash between secular and religious values.

Secular values would seem likely to include self preservation (for the state) and therefor require war.  Religious values as Bob pointed out don't necessarily do that, unless contaminated by politics. 
No kidding.
Those who made an individual choice to not follow their faith made an individual choice. Not based on religion but on their own ethical standards. Something Bill apparently advocates. He doesn't need a book or an organization to guide him.
76  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:24AM
You mean like one of the thousands of devout Christian soldiers that got drafted by a Christian society to join the war effort in Vietnam and then kills people under the orders of Christian commanding officer?

Tell me Bob, does that soldier then give up his Christianity forever, or does he just suspend it while he is in the war zone where he temporarily adopts a secular code of ethics that allows him to kill, then when his tour of duty is done he brings back those Christian ethics and continues on from where he left off like nothing ever happened?

I used Vietnam as the example because the soldier would have had little choice in being included.  But never mind, the questions were rhetorical.
So because religion has some bad history let's just throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's be like Lenin or PolPot or Hitler. They were not religious. They made up their own ethics.
77  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:21AM
I would hope not.  Yet, 83% of evangelicals voted for that guy. 
We had a choice between a left wing idiot or a right wing *****.

Why is idiot allowed and m$r@n not allowed?
78  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 09:20AM
Like having to accept the bible or some other self contradictory and inconsistent texts written in the bronze age by people who knew the world was flat and at the center of the universe.  Having to support an theistic infrastructure.  Having to help pay for the building and up keep of a large structure.  Having to pay for and listen to someone reading to me from those texts I mentioned.  Having to take time out of my life to congregate.  Having to believe in a god.  Having to worship a cruel, vengeful and jealous being that I cannot see, hear or converse with.  Having to suspend reason to do all of the above.  There is more, but that should give you an idea.
Still, motionless, static, stationary, unchanging.  Maybe you'd understand better if you look at the problems people like Islamic fundamentalists, the Amish and Hasidic Jew are presented with while trying to live in an ever more modern world.  

IOw do whatever I want with whom ever I want whenever I want.  As long as it lines up with your ethics.
"Hey he slept around, beat a few people and cursed out an old lady. But that's his own ethics. I may not like it but who am I to say?"
79  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 08:19AM
I'm a night owl.

Dave, you are the one that made the statement "My point is that it has nothing to do with religion. It's the ethics of the person doing the deed. If they were religious they wouldn't do the deed."

Now you try to distance (or excuse) yourself from it.  Where are your ethics?
80  Practice Break / Religion / Re: God on: Aug 18, 2017, 07:56AM

Yup ... consistency is a pretty good measure of whether or not someone takes honesty seriously.
Of course the more inconsistent (and those who are too chaotic to really have a sense of it) tend to react badly to meta-criticism like this, because it argues for actual standards of conduct and thinking, and that tends to be threatening to those who don't measure up. That's why meta-criticism so frequently gets push back from certain members of my fan club. It's the simile of the soccer "players" who can't do anything organized at all, but just kick the ball around randomly and claim scores with no concept of the game rules at all, and presume they're entitled to the same status as the actual teams in a competitive league. They hate hearing about the rules too--don't understand the rules--just want to play "soccer" along with all the "other" soccer players.
And it seems well established in here that a little refereeing along these lines would help keep the "soccer team" from preventing the actual teams from doing their thing. It does seem they're back ... doing sort of okay for now, but I suspect that's a pretty tenuous situation--just needs to be monitored, at least ideally. I know the policies in here prevent any rational management of the social climate and the integrity of Discussion and don't accommodate any policing of genuine vs. bad faith discussion (or "discussion") and all that, but done reasonably well it would make a world of difference.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 566