The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by BW-userx ...

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...g.php?t=600689

Originally Posted by enorbet @ BW-userx - Your debating skills seem to be extremely childish, actually on the level of "I'm rubber, you're glue..." Look, I have been here for over 300 of the pages in this thread and you have been here for less than 50, and the words you "quoted" were attributed to me. I know what I write and it is highly suspicious that up until that post you normally used the Forum's quotes mechanism that lists the post from which the quote was taken and the first (and rare) time you didn't do that was effectively to put "straw man" words in "my mouth".

yep I use copy and paste to do that . and yep I made a boo boo. and somehow that got inserted into that post from copy paste and how ever that got into the clip board. only to end up in that post my mistake.

the point I was making about is what you stated and how you conduct yourself. Always tossing out accusations about me without providing any thing to show me what it is you are even slightly referring to so that whatever it is can then be dealt with properly. therefore they stay in the unsubstantiated accusations category. .

You just spit out your so called facts then I give my rebuttal then instead of you sticking to the topic you side track it. Instead coming back with accusations instead of a proper rebuttal.

Now you are using your side tracking tactics with a rock as your weapon.


By the way you worded that one thing about you never said that, it was I looked to make sure, but I an not going to show you your error so that it can be taken care of properly. Instead I am just going to keep it in the realm of an accusations instead.

you seem to be stuck in your ways.

Originally Posted by enorbet You did this and I did due diligence by going back a very reasonable distance within the pages where the bulk of our "conversation" has taken place.

there you now admit that was a lie you told me by this admittance of how much you actually looked. then you knowing still gave the impression you had looked in all 500+ post instead by the way you wrote your first mentioning of it to me.

Instead of being honest the first time. you exaggerated the facts freely knowing that you where doing so. deliberately lying to me about the truth in just how much you actually looked to try and deceive, twist the facts, the truth in just how much you looked to be sure you did not write that which was posted by the malfunction of the copy paste and human error factor.


deliberately and freely added to the facts of what you actually did to try and prove to yourself - if you did or did not actually say that which was posted within what you did say. then you freely and willfully posted it in here to me. for all to see.

as I am sure no one held gun to your head to twist what you stated as facts . instead you just assumed it a truth and took a chance on it then. Not even being honest enough to indicate what your actions where when you stated it.

now the truth came out, you only actually looked through a few pages to be sure, and not all 500+ as you stated.

Do I need to quote that again?

because I will.

Originally Posted by enorbet Your post tag link points to post #7517 and everyone can see the words you posted are nowhere to be found in that post, so despite your protests to the opposite, the burden of proof is on YOU since you provided a false link in which the words are likely yours. They certainly are not mine. I, sometimes have not used formal quotes and I am quite willing to back each and every one up since I have no sacred cow to prop up.

Originally Posted by enorbet Until you fix this, you, Sir, are a liar and a cheat

do you see it right there?

Even you demand truth!

Mans belief system is what uses truth to make them honest not only with themselves first then others.

when one obscures a truth they are essentially lying to themselves first then if they tell others they then are then lying to them too.

that is called spreading lies.

simple enough yes?


by only taking parts of a whole one will never get that whole.
wanting the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

if then man takes whatever part of that whole truth, then added to it whatever they make up from whatever source it comes from, be it themselves or another then added it to that part of a truth.

then what happens to that whole truth?

It is n longer the whole truth.

instead it becomes deceiving in nature.

Just like what you did, you did not tell me the whole truth about what you did to insure you where in the right about not writing all of that which I rebutted on. Because even you doubted. Then you had to get rid of that doubt. by whatever means available to you.

you only looked so far to insure you gained a truth.

the truth that you were looking for was, that you did not actually say that.

for whatever your reasons you stopped looking to be sure for a dead cold fact that yes indeed you did not say that.

You then told yourself what to reinforce that wilful act on yourself?

whatever it was you then still had that internal need to be absolutely sure you were being absolutely honest with yourself first. even though you had not actually proven it to yourself. Because you stopped looking to make yourself absolutely sure.

therefore, in order for this necessary psychological process to complete its task to make you a part of a truth, you had to do what instead?

Lie.

first to yourself, then to another. because you had that deep need to prove yourself right to that other. in this instance it was me.

In order for you to accomplish this task you did what?

you wrote what key phrase to give indication that you had succeed in this need to be right, so you would not be the opposing wrong.

wrote this instead of being completely honest.

Originally Posted by enorbet Those are not my words and not posted by me in 500+ pages here. Please correct your "quotation" if not your"analysis" and dissertation.

In 500+ pages here. In order to actually know that one has to have actually have searched through all 500+ pages in here to make that a absolute truth.

so I put you to the test. I asked you to prove it instead of just taking your word for it.

then you did what?

instead of proving it with evidence that you knew you did not have yet, not that it was not available to you to obtain. because all of them 500+ post are still here for you to even go back and search through.

and because you didn't even do that. even the first time. nor the second time when given the opportunity. Still you did not do this. Instead now by your own admittance you used your rationalization and observation to what you came to see as a pattern of behavior of mine. then used that to draw your conclusion to a possible truth, and you still put in as a compete truth. A no matter what truth.

what if I had changed my behavior in how I post in here. Because that is a possabtiy that can take place.

did you take that into consideration at all?

I do not think so. by what you previously wrote. Because no question to me about anything.

Just a solid this is how it is out of you, period! and that is your story and you are sticking to it. attitude.

No questing me to even try to get at a truth. it is all one sided. still without you even searching all of the 500+ post you gave clear indication you had to have looked at in order to even make such a statement.

Then demanded vindication. WHY?

do you even know and understand yourself that much?

to summarize your behavior.

you seen something that put doubt into your mind.

you did not actually get rid of it by means of searching every post just to be sure.

you didn't even ask me about it first to try and find out the truth of it.

Instead you came back with a lie to indicate that you definitely had not said it.

No inquire to how that may have happened even.

Instead you made a wilful lie first to yourself then to me by giving indication you had actually read 500+ post to be sure you didn't say that.

How else could to know for sure?

So I took it out of that state you put in it.

then I put it to question. then passed it back to you.

You now had a choice to either let it go, or deal with it.

You dealt with it. why?

The need to be a truth.

now you had a choice to make again.

How are you going to prove it to me?

Because I put it back into an abstract state.

where you tried to make it concrete the first time with a lie
and I did not accept it.

so you got upset with me. because damn it! it is you that has to be right. always! no matter what!

WHY? do you understand yourself yet?


but because you had not done that yet with me. Because I questioned your honestly.

your ego just took a blow.

then something within you made you then do what?

try and put it back into the concert state from which you placed it using a lie.

now you're using your rationalization and observation to draw it back into a concrete state.

instead of actually using concrete evidence available to you. which is this entire thread.

I conceded and gave you the truth to hopefully alleviate this internal need within your psyche to be right, and always right no matter what.

that is the internal process of the mind utilizing its abilities to gather information by means of observation, and searching, thinking and rationalizing, along with reasoning to draw to a conclusion that will hopefully end with a real truth.

It is done freely and not always intentionally. Due to what is called learn behavior. where one does something one way so much that it just becomes an automatic behavior, both in the full process of thinking to come to that conclusion one needs to gain a truth, to how he or she behaves as a direct result of what they place into their belief system as a truth.

If they do not be honest with themselves first so they can be honest with others next. Then they are training themselves to be lazy brains.

Lazy brains that no longer want to put forth an effort to take in all of the facts or even make sure they look for them first, and if not at least be honest about it instead.

even using them justifications to why they are not doing so. at least they are honest justifications.

nevertheless, not being honest and not lazy about it, then making up or adding to a part of a truth or what they think is a truth.

so they can make it a truth. it still is not a truth.

then when they take this so called truth and place it into their belief system as a truth. then errors shall come out of them whenever they use it.

when they communicate it to another by whatever means it takes place.

now they are only spreading (errors) lies about the truth. no matter what that truth really is.

and some just get stuck in what they have done to themselves and just keep insisting they are the truth. because they came to it by the means available to them. and they know for a fact that they cannot be wrong because they have to be right.

that is the reason they have a belief system to store only truths in. rightful thoughts.

if they to not use the proper means to gain a truth and still accept it as a truth. they've just deceived themselves and if they do not correct their way of thinking they just gets caught in a loop.
its called - "stuck on stupid"

they themselves are making oneself - self-righteous because they are using their own self to do so.

they just keep throw out errors here and there all the time reinforcing their beliefs telling themselves every time they tell someone else this is the truth and they are right when actuality they are not.

therefore, one then needs to really analyze how it is they are coming to these conclusions.
and a whole other process needs to take place. by whatever means available to the one that is trying to find out. so he will know the truth about that.

This may have been taken by you as a lot of rubbish said by me. then that is you doing what again?

disbelieve a truth. then one would have to dig in and discover your motivations for your actions.

what is casing you to error so much?

that is what would need to be looked at so it can be hopefully corrected.

but one can only lead a horse to water. But you can't make it drink.

there maybe more ways then one way to get the truth, but there can only be one truth and the rest is a lie.

Simple logic.


Just to be sure to give you all of my time in what you said to me I will finish with what you wrote me.

Originally Posted by enorbet and I will gladly retract this should you "man up" and accept the responsibility of your own words and admit your transgression.

I have already to my knowledge fully explained myself to you in what I just wrote.

Now the ball is back in your court on that matter and others.

Originally Posted by enorbet At some point should you not fix this I will have a Mod help in this decision of whose responsibility it is and who has earned an infraction.

Still demanding vindication. now using threats to insure you shall be made right.

why do you think it is that man had this internal strong need to be just?

could it have came by design?

Originally Posted by enorbet Edit: For the sake of specificity and clarity and as a helpful reminder, the mistaken or falsified quote appears as this It's that last line just above that are NOT my words yet you said they were. It's either merely a lie of passing on a falsehood (your definition) or it is willful deception. Now anyone can click the two links and compare for themselves.

prove that I stated they were your words.

I demand my vindication too! seriously do it dude. be your own man your own self too.

let me save you the time.

beinift of the doubt, as it was in quotes therefore indicating you said it. implying you said it. not saying you said it.

there is a difference. Even though slim in this event. Just enough to be debatable. Don't you think?
(rhetorical question)

Originally Posted by BW-userx post #7526 You quoted me thusly Quote: Originally Posted by Bw-userx in previous post supposedly quoting enorbet View Post Maybe that is why I am confusing you. You do not try to get a full understanding of what you tell me, Quote: Originally Posted by BW-userx- rebuttal to someone else's words Have you even learned about the process of a human mind? When it becomes so entangled in confusion it starts to unravel. have you even heard of the term,

if you have not noticed that these are getting lengthy . Yeah sometimes I do the unthinkable, make a mistake.

now here comes my justification to try and make things right again. everyone does this. Just some do it more then others.

when trying to be sure that everything is worded just right and formatted and looks nice and legible and ect.. so yes - cut copy paste, oops I put that in the wrong place and didn't even know can and has happened. as I am obviously proof of that one.

because that is all that happened and you did what to try and prove it?

Originally Posted by God From Ashdod I will cut off the one enthroned and the sceptered ruler from Ashkelon; I will turn my hand against Ekron, and the last of the Philistines shall perish, says the Lord GOD.

It is well worth remembering that the Christian Bible is a compilation of books – some about two thousand years old, others of unknown but ancient age. Some of them were passed down by oral history for many generations before being written down. The authors didn't know each other nor did they contemplate that their writings would ever be assembled into a volume. There are multiple versions of some books, alternate endings, and so on. It must also be understood that the book, having gained tremendous religious importance, has also been redacted.

The choice of books was made by a committee, and the Catholic Bible contains different books. Unfortunately, after the decisions were made, a great many other ancient texts were then destroyed as "heretical." The only known copies.

The book is ... a book. And let the record show that, despite its many imperfections, it is a book that has had a profound influence upon mankind. (Despite its warts, it seems pretty obvious to me==IMHO™ that there is indeed Deity at work here.) Nevertheless, one should have no illusions about what it is – and isn't.

For instance, we know that some of the prophecies in the book did not come true, including some made by Jesus himself (e.g. "some of you will not taste death before I come again"). One king is supposed to succeed another, but we know that he didn't. One king is supposed to destroy another, but we know that he made a truce instead. The Nile River has never run dry. God promises to do things – like cause a city to burn forever and never be inhabited – that He does not do ... as we know because today that city is a lovely place, not a volcano. Jesus promises that "you can ask for anything in My name and God will do it." (I'm still waiting for that pot of gold to appear.)

When Paul spoke of "the scriptures," declaring them entirely on his own authority to be infallible, are we to believe that he was speaking of his own letters? (Presumably including those not yet written.) How on earth could he? What – besides Emperor Constantine – elevated his letters to be "scripture?" And howcum we find him sailing away to meet the Emperor at the end of Acts of the Apostles, having firmly established his place as a Roman citizen by birth, when in 2 Timothy he is about to be executed by someone ... "poured out as a drink offering," as he rather-improbably put it – when as a Roman citizen he absolutely could not have been executed by any religious authorities anywhere?

(He waltzed away from one trap in "Acts" by asserting the truth of his legal status ... discarding all pretenses of being a "good Jew" when the going got tough! He could have waltzed away from this one, too. And if the Romans were about to do him in, why would he make a religious reference? The Romans didn't execute people for religious reasons – Pontius Pilate as much as said so before finally caving-in to political pressure and/or lack of sleep. Although Paul at one point styled himself as "the ultimate Pharisee," there is no doubt that in fact he wasn't. (He never spoke like anyone from that order, and in any case he wasn't a Jew!)

And, so on. It's not difficult to find holes. "Make of them what you will." (But that doesn't have to mean that you throw out the baby with the bathwater.) It is what it is what it is. Plan Accordingly.™

So, maybe this is a thing that ought not be subjected to strict, hair-splitting interpretation in the first place. (And the same could well be said about [this] religion in general ...?) Maybe we should also cut each other a little more slack.

Well we certainly have an interesting turn of events. On one hand BW-userx has admitted that the words, allegedly by me, that he quoted was a mistake but still wishes to call me a liar for referring to 500+ pages in the first response post then ~12 pages of active search a little later. I suppose it has escaped him that I have a pretty good idea of what I have written and actively searched considerably more than the number of pages within which any discussion between he and I took place. So to be clear I am dead certain I never wrote those words to Bw-userx and reasonably certain they do not exist by my hand in all of the pages in this entire thread to anyone.

Yet, to BW-userx this qualifies as a lie and this from a man who has the gall to quote God without a shred of doubt of his ability to know the mind of The Creator whose existence, the main thrust of this thread, he has yet to even question hypothetically let alone attempt to prove.

BW-userx has repeatedly used the phrase "oil and water" but has yet to demonstrate that he understands that, absent some sort of compartmentalization, what is really impossible to mix is Faith and Reason. Reason requires analysis of evidence yet Faith sees any sort of testing as a matter of ridicule as with Doubting Thomas and the Incredulity of Jerome (not to mention the coercive censure of Galileo and so many like him).

In any case I do officially retract my concern over BW-userx's misquote and though it was like pulling teeth, at least he finally did admit his mistake. I sincerely doubt he will ever admit that he has no ground upon which to quote God, but that is why this thread continued after the fundamental sufficiency of just two posts. For some odd reason many people of Faith want to "have their cake and eat it, too" by denying the validity of Science while at the same time attempting to employ it to bolster their beliefs. There is the battle. Nobody gets to borrow the authority of Science just by using the word. One example - "Intelligent Design" is just an advertising gimmick repackaging of "Creation Science" and earlier yet, "Creationism". It does not qualify as Science at all, relying entirely on Faith.

Fairy tales can go to hell!

I shake the dust off my feet to you enorbet

Things change!

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann You have got too used to baiting Christians to understand Pagans! I haven't attempted to convert anyone to my beliefs - unlike you. I only have a religious signature as a modest response to another member of this forum who has one warning those who disagree with him that they'll go to hell. I couldn't care less what atheists, Christians, or Muslims believe: I just object to their assertions of correctness. Nor do I claim that you will be "judged by Zeus". I don't think that either of us will be judged by anyone, and, since you pay no attention to Zeus, why should he pay attention to you?

David, you should read my paragraphs again, and notice the "IFs" I have put in there. Of course I don't know anything about your brand of polytheism, apart of it being a revival of ancient Greek deities. Just in case you missed it, mine was an example, intended to show a pattern without having to use the christian religion once again. Of course this didn't prevent our friend obsessed with Satan from firing other Denial-Of-Service text blobs.

You're beating a strawman when you say that I'm trying to convert anyone. Convert to what, by the way? What many atheists do, on the other hand, is requesting something convincing from religious people who make certain claims, in support of their own claims. Because religion can generate effects that have a heavy impact on everybody's lives. Take military and political decisions, for example. Religion is not "innocent".

Therefore, shouldn't we request convincing and reliable evidence in support of irrational and divisive claims that have such a deep impact on everybody? Shouldn't we point to more reliable and constructive forms of thought, which have a proven track record of reliability, and make actual knowledge possible, instead of sloppy and divisive opinions at best? The only response we get is «Because.» ... plus (usually) a flood of additional unsupported claims, circular reasoning, as well as offended "lese majesty" reactions...

Never use arguments from history, unless you actually know some. The evidence for the Earth being a sphere was known to the Greeks and taught to every medieval student.

Oops, my bad. That was a lapsus on my part, not ignorance: replace "flat Earth" with "geocentric model".

Under certain conditions, consensus gentium works: see the writings of Thomas Reid and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

While there might be something called "religious experience", it would still be very difficult to study, because of its completely subjective nature. Hence we should trust religious people about the contents of their own religious feelings. But because such contents can be very different between different religious groups, and even between individuals from the same group, this is going to be a mess. It is in fact a royal mess.

I won't mention the role of education, and the influence of social and cultural contexts, in the shaping of such feelings. So, is there a common religious feeling, whatever that means? Perhaps, but then shouldn't people be united by it, instead of divided? Where do you see, in such division, the alleged "overwhelming majority" you were talking about? Not that your argument held much water, though.

Did I mention the condescending rudeness of atheists?

You feel offended very easily, David. I was mentioning the "Chinese Teapot" example made by Bertrand Russell ("Is There a God?", 1952) which in spite of its age nicely summarizes what's going on in this thread:

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

It must never be overlooked that Christianity was the state religion of the Roman Empire.

This was "Constantine's Triumph.™" He recognized the power of religion as an instrument of State control, and he replaced the then-State religions of his Empire with this one. He purposed that his new religion would piggy-back on the religion of the politically-powerful Jews. It appears that he did not select Jesus of Nazareth, but co-opted this "comparatively small but typical personality cult" and used his sovereign power to elevate it into what it has become today. It is uncertain what Paul of Tarsus – and other people like him – had to do with anything, but we can surmise that a concerted effort was being made to "convert" the Jews and in so doing to nullify or neuter their religion. This of course has never been successful.

(Dr. Shaye Cohen (et seq.) wrote an interesting paper on this subject.)

Paradoxically, the religion that he sanctioned out-lived his Empire. The Roman Empire no longer exists, but the Roman Church still does. (As does the Coptic Church in the far east, the other remnant of the religion of that broken Empire.) The monarch of one branch of that religion – the Pope – is so singularly powerful that the nations of the world have embassies in the Vatican City, which is recognized as a nation.

It is still a hallmark of churches, and this one in particular, that they do not tolerate dissent, but expect unswerving obedience from their followers. They put a nice blanket on it, but the sentiment remains.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix You're beating a strawman when you say that I'm trying to convert anyone. Convert to what, by the way? What many atheists do, on the other hand, is requesting something convincing from religious people who make certain claims, in support of their own claims.

I glad to hear you aren't proselytising! But so many atheists do, as you must surely be aware. In the USA, this seems to often involve giving deliberate offence; but if I lived surrounded by fundies, I might succumb to that temptation myself. And while you may reasonably ask others to tell you their reasons for belief, what of your reasons for unbelief? To be an agnostic is rational, if rather unreasonable, but to be an atheist invites the question as to how you can be sure of non-existence?

I was mentioning the "Chinese Teapot" example made by Bertrand Russell

Mea culpa: I assumed the Chinese Teapot was a cousin of the Spaghetti Monster. Russell is not someone I've read much of; a minor philosopher, and, whatever one's politics, what can one make of a man who described JFK as "much more wicked than Hitler"?

It just seems obvious if you're gonna go with religion (because you're young) the first ones came first(!) so howl at the moon! (Unless at your computer you * evolution... )

There is such a thing as a perpetual motion machine, it's called the universe... even perpetuates fairy tails*.

Hitler and "lawmakers*" are on the same stage. Control* may even start out thinking it's helping because that's how it was taught‽.edu

This may be butting in but I think your considered responses are worthy of discussion.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann I glad to hear you aren't proselytising! But so many atheists do, as you must surely be aware. In the USA, this seems to often involve giving deliberate offence; but if I lived surrounded by fundies, I might succumb to that temptation myself. And while you may reasonably ask others to tell you their reasons for belief, what of your reasons for unbelief? To be an agnostic is rational, if rather unreasonable, but to be an atheist invites the question as to how you can be sure of non-existence?

I am an atheist since in my world I deal in odds and while I am aware that while it is impossible to absolutely rule out the possibility that some morning I may wake up on Ganymede or in the center of our Sun, I am most certainly NOT going to invest in "foul weather gear". Once the odds are high enough we approach certainty. Conversely once the odds are low enough, even if that means the odds on gathering any evidence whatsoever, in my estimation all my bets are off. I care not if some people choose to "hedge their bets" as long as they don't also condone coercion of those who disagree.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann Mea culpa: I assumed the Chinese Teapot was a cousin of the Spaghetti Monster. Russell is not someone I've read much of; a minor philosopher, and, whatever one's politics, what can one make of a man who described JFK as "much more wicked than Hitler"?

Good point but I am likely not referring to the one you were making. In my opinion it matters far less how a person has lived his/her life or even what else they have said during that life. What matters to me is whether what specifically was said has any substance or not. Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Russell's thinking about religion seems rational and well-founded. Your quote of him regarding JFK is not quite accurate and is considerably less over-the-top when seen in context. Russell was talking on the larger subject of WMDs, primarily thermonuclear weapons, and during the Cold War at that, and from Russell's POV, any leader who didn't champion immediate "banning of The Bomb" was at the very least flirting with the possible extermination and extinction of much of all life on earth. Since only hindsight is 20/20, it is impossible to do more than speculate whether JFK made the world safer or more dangerous on a long time scale. All we know for certain is that a Nuclear Conflagration was avoided on his watch, and due to bad intel on the state of launch readiness in Cuba, the threat was VERY real, and had he blindly followed the Military view on this, we may never have gotten here to 2017 to write about it.

I suspect Russel's estimation of wickedness relative to Hitler was designed as an extreme bucket of ice water to get leaders to "wake the fuck up!".

eq,lomp:

While girls are less likely to begin school, boys are more likely to repeat grades or drop out altogether.

wanSì.?!

Thank u religion! ◣◢┌∩┐

Originally Posted by BW-userx I shake the dust off my feet to you enorbet

Easy to do when your points not buried in reality... pick up the snake instead!‽.

Originally Posted by BW-userx I shake the dust off my feet to you enorbet

It's OK Matthew, I mean BW-userx. I expected such a response. You seem to believe that since i didn't adopt your words and believe as you do that I must not have listened. I think anyone can decide for themselves who was engaged in discussion and who played the role of a parrot.