Brilliant!:D Now you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names (above their posts...) it shows to you. Hm, or maybe Slashdot admins are on the dark side?...really, perhaps you should consider that.
Duopoly I desribed is a fairly basic (yet often neglected, especially by worshippers) issue. Not an issue even, just a simple observation. If you would stop dismissing it, you would be able (I am sure you are fundamentally able to do that) to see the simple non-issue (really; it was quite secondary to everything)
Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence and disregard for arguments which you don't like...well, I didn;t expect you to see that this is just part of your safety mechanisms.
I know you think I'm lying (for some reason...hey, maybe I'm a Satan sidekick). This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...
You're more damaged than I thought. You're confusing me with another poster; take a deep breath and reread whole discussion, trying to notice this time who says who.
In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!":). I mean, sure, that's the standard religious practice...but one would think you'd at least try not to show it so directly. Unless you're so lost by now... (or...endule me, actually have the guts to clarify why you think you're not incoherent; other then the customary "because I say so" of course)
Yes, no, yes, no...you know, I have an idea; why don't use binary next time?:)
Though I must admit, there's another cute thing - you seem to claim that having the nerve to not discuss only what and how you the discussion should progress is somehow...illogical.:)
Very reveling in regards to your logic. Very typical for certain kinds of people.
Again, you fail at understanding the issue (but really, I'm totally serious here - that's not your fault; you're a victim of certain societal realities against which there's very little defense)
Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all; you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.
In no place I cherry-picked the Bible. But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.
And why yes, I do not say that there is "no god"; from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless. But...you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires. And thousands of other gods. Go ahead.
And good one, it's rare to see so devoted one as you are (I might get from this discussion quite a bt after all; don't you just love it that you ptovide me with usefull information about your kind?:) ). Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems. FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)
What's the matter, do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are? So insecure?
In case you didn't notice (wonder why...) - the story is about "religious texts", not just the Bible. And my points are quite general (though obviously in response to yours will touch on Christianity more often; but they are nowehre exclusive to it)
I'd say I know quite many Christians; in a country where there's officially 95+ % of them that's quite easy.
Again, it's only what you claim to be true/not true. Let's try another approach: get random religious text (of random religion) and defend it equally well. If your "arguments" stemming from Bible are solid, you should be able to give just as solid arguments for any other text, right?
And no, that's not what I was implying there; but I see how you cannot understand it. Seems to be one of the basic differences between us - you accept religions for they claim to be. I accept them for what they are; how they interact with the world at large.
You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.
"Cheating" similarly to how religions do won't work here, the medium is too limited; but tricks, exploiting certain "flaws" does work, I can assure you that:) (well, you sorta know that already, by the simple fact how you are caught by them...)
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
:)
And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you. And that's it. That's your idea of winning. Twisting words along the way (you really want to convince yourself that I said I think like you do now? Fine, have it your way:) ), claiming you use logic...
You just made a wonderfull explanation of what religion is, BTW. Too bad you might not realise that ever...
No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that. Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of (in that I am similar to people I would call true faithfull; the scope of things in which we believe is completelly different of course)
Anf of course you ignore them; have you studied extensivelly Finnish Paganism, for only one example? Or (throw in 500 another ones here)?
But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".
I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW; I don't agree with their conclusion, but I respect them fully. They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.
PS. And you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times. It's just a about a simple question. Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?
Now give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world. Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.
Cute, another obvious "truths" to you:) (hey, I mean you no ill - whatever you need to feel comfortable woth your so called "choices")
I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state. That's quite a difference. Something would have to shake you for any argumentation to work (that's how religions exploit you BTW, creating or feeding on mystical experiences (birth, death))
But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian":) Better than me obviously. Are you possibly an Ubermensch?:)
(though TBH I did found some slightly intruguing aspect, you proved usefull after all; too bad you could be so much more for humanity)
Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?
It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.
Yes, that's what you to think. But it's not the case.
Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions? Or is it simply tackled on? Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull? (which, again, represents what the religions is about)
At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.
(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)
Look, I get it, you don't see that there. You don't have to prove it to me again and again; I understand (again, also because once I was in such state as you are now). You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity. Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir... (and even if, certainly only "some sects")
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.
And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term;p , a diabolic self deceit.
Really, stop the line with demanding arguments (again, I know how you now). It's just that, saying it, demanding it. But you're closed to them; you choose to, you need to be (you were shaped to need that). That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.
But there a things which work, I can assure you that:) (too bad thi place is not very conductive to them - simply because they're about exploiting the same flaws of human mind which religions exploit; and text exchange on a web forum is not a where they thrive)
Seems we have a different understanding or experience of what "serious preacher" means. That might explain why religion in my place is so...efficient (95+ % uner one monolithic faith, in an EU country with proper liberties)
This is claimed to be questioned. By worshippers. That's a different thing than actually questioning.
As for the second part, you misunderstood my point - which is that, ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.
It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute:)
I never did that, or anything like it.
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above. I quote:
Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago. Which is quite good testament to validity of the rest of what you write. Not because you're inherently incapable of seeing such flaws, but because you trained yourself not to see them. You choose not to realise how blatant lack of coherency you display.
Which is sad. Though understable. Remember, there's a high chance that many people you argue with were similarly brainwashed to you; I know I was. I know how you feel about all of this. You don't know how I feel.
Now consider...I really know both sides. I can choose. You don't know what to choose from, you convinced yourself it's too scary.
Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.
You...you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact (too unsecure otherwise?), apparently up to a paint of ridiculously treating, say, science on the same terms. Whatever we'll say won't change your mind obviously, but consider this: what of an accomplishment would that be?
Thos things are above YOU CAPACITY, to reason.
You really don't see anything in general Christian doctrine not backed by evidence?... wow...just...wow.
How I'm glad that I don't meet people like you..at all, it would seem (even though I live in a place that's officialy 95+% Christian)
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliant! :D Now you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names (above their posts...) it shows to you. Hm, or maybe Slashdot admins are on the dark side?...really, perhaps you should consider that.
Duopoly I desribed is a fairly basic (yet often neglected, especially by worshippers) issue. Not an issue even, just a simple observation. If you would stop dismissing it, you would be able (I am sure you are fundamentally able to do that) to see the simple non-issue (really; it was quite secondary to everything)
Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence and disregard for arguments which you don't like...well, I didn;t expect you to see that this is just part of your safety mechanisms.
I know you think I'm lying (for some reason...hey, maybe I'm a Satan sidekick). This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...
You're more damaged than I thought. You're confusing me with another poster; take a deep breath and reread whole discussion, trying to notice this time who says who.
In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!" :). I mean, sure, that's the standard religious practice...but one would think you'd at least try not to show it so directly. Unless you're so lost by now... (or...endule me, actually have the guts to clarify why you think you're not incoherent; other then the customary "because I say so" of course)
Yes, no, yes, no...you know, I have an idea; why don't use binary next time? :)
Though I must admit, there's another cute thing - you seem to claim that having the nerve to not discuss only what and how you the discussion should progress is somehow...illogical. :)
Very reveling in regards to your logic. Very typical for certain kinds of people.
Again, you fail at understanding the issue (but really, I'm totally serious here - that's not your fault; you're a victim of certain societal realities against which there's very little defense)
Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all; you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.
Cute. I posted the quote right there :)
But of course, I'm lying, I'm stupid, I'm the scurge of gods children...don't you get hard while fighting me on a holly quest?
In no place I cherry-picked the Bible. But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.
And why yes, I do not say that there is "no god"; from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless. But...you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires. And thousands of other gods. Go ahead.
And good one, it's rare to see so devoted one as you are (I might get from this discussion quite a bt after all; don't you just love it that you ptovide me with usefull information about your kind? :) ). Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems. FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)
I see, you think we're on Crusade here :)
What's the matter, do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are? So insecure?
In case you didn't notice (wonder why...) - the story is about "religious texts", not just the Bible. And my points are quite general (though obviously in response to yours will touch on Christianity more often; but they are nowehre exclusive to it)
I'd say I know quite many Christians; in a country where there's officially 95+ % of them that's quite easy.
Again, it's only what you claim to be true/not true. Let's try another approach: get random religious text (of random religion) and defend it equally well. If your "arguments" stemming from Bible are solid, you should be able to give just as solid arguments for any other text, right?
And no, that's not what I was implying there; but I see how you cannot understand it. Seems to be one of the basic differences between us - you accept religions for they claim to be. I accept them for what they are; how they interact with the world at large.
You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.
"Cheating" similarly to how religions do won't work here, the medium is too limited; but tricks, exploiting certain "flaws" does work, I can assure you that :) (well, you sorta know that already, by the simple fact how you are caught by them...)
It literally isn't there.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
:)
And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you. And that's it. That's your idea of winning. Twisting words along the way (you really want to convince yourself that I said I think like you do now? Fine, have it your way :) ), claiming you use logic...
You just made a wonderfull explanation of what religion is, BTW. Too bad you might not realise that ever...
No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that. Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of (in that I am similar to people I would call true faithfull; the scope of things in which we believe is completelly different of course)
Anf of course you ignore them; have you studied extensivelly Finnish Paganism, for only one example? Or (throw in 500 another ones here)?
But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".
I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW; I don't agree with their conclusion, but I respect them fully. They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.
PS. And you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times. It's just a about a simple question. Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?
Great, kudos to you.
Now give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world. Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.
Cute, another obvious "truths" to you :) (hey, I mean you no ill - whatever you need to feel comfortable woth your so called "choices")
I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state. That's quite a difference. Something would have to shake you for any argumentation to work (that's how religions exploit you BTW, creating or feeding on mystical experiences (birth, death))
But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian" :) Better than me obviously. Are you possibly an Ubermensch? :)
(though TBH I did found some slightly intruguing aspect, you proved usefull after all; too bad you could be so much more for humanity)
It is questioned. All the time.
Again, that's just a claim.
Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?
It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.
Yes, that's what you to think. But it's not the case.
Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions? Or is it simply tackled on? Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull? (which, again, represents what the religions is about)
At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.
(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)
Look, I get it, you don't see that there. You don't have to prove it to me again and again; I understand (again, also because once I was in such state as you are now). You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity. Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir... (and even if, certainly only "some sects")
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.
And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.
Really, stop the line with demanding arguments (again, I know how you now). It's just that, saying it, demanding it. But you're closed to them; you choose to, you need to be (you were shaped to need that). That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.
But there a things which work, I can assure you that :) (too bad thi place is not very conductive to them - simply because they're about exploiting the same flaws of human mind which religions exploit; and text exchange on a web forum is not a where they thrive)
If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.
Which I don't mind actually...
Your hopes deceived you yet again.
Again, one liners conveying obvious truth (plus...do you have to resolve to cut'n'paste between different posts? Automata much?);
You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence. You rerouted around that possibility long ago.
Sad, really; not only another mind wasted - discussion with you isn't even very usefull to me, not revelaing any new mechanism.
Seems we have a different understanding or experience of what "serious preacher" means. That might explain why religion in my place is so...efficient (95+ % uner one monolithic faith, in an EU country with proper liberties)
This is claimed to be questioned. By worshippers. That's a different thing than actually questioning.
As for the second part, you misunderstood my point - which is that, ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.
It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)
I never did that, or anything like it.
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above. I quote:
Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago. Which is quite good testament to validity of the rest of what you write. Not because you're inherently incapable of seeing such flaws, but because you trained yourself not to see them. You choose not to realise how blatant lack of coherency you display.
Which is sad. Though understable. Remember, there's a high chance that many people you argue with were similarly brainwashed to you; I know I was. I know how you feel about all of this. You don't know how I feel.
Now consider...I really know both sides. I can choose. You don't know what to choose from, you convinced yourself it's too scary.
Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.
You...you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact (too unsecure otherwise?), apparently up to a paint of ridiculously treating, say, science on the same terms. Whatever we'll say won't change your mind obviously, but consider this: what of an accomplishment would that be?
Thos things are above YOU CAPACITY, to reason.
You really don't see anything in general Christian doctrine not backed by evidence?... wow...just...wow.
How I'm glad that I don't meet people like you..at all, it would seem (even though I live in a place that's officialy 95+% Christian)
The latter of course. Only those who agree with us can understand those things.