[leelover]

Analogbear, you are simply amazing!

You still miss the point, you make assumptions, claim them to be FACT and TRUTH, and then launch off on that skewed foundation.

I AM NOT trying to sell you the Blue Car!

I am saying that I have a Blue Car. It performs really well, best I have ever driven. Has a lot of important features that I have not seen in other cars (like an engine) I have been involved in competitions with other cars, never lost. Maybe I'm a better driver? I used to drive a lot of other cars, none of them have come close to this one.
If you don't like my car, that's fine. You don't have to buy one. I still believe it's the best one, and will be happy to tell you why.

You seem to want to get caught up in a never ending discussion of what is wrong with my car based on who built it, the reports in the consumer report guide that YOU subscribe to, And the way it looks at a distance.

That's fine, as it seems to be what you really enjoy. I suspect that is the end result of philosophy. Personally, I would rather have something that has an actual practical value, rather than making me more cynical, and critical towards the people I am put into contact with.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Analogbear, you are simply amazing!

You still miss the point, you make assumptions, claim them to be FACT and TRUTH, and then launch off on that skewed foundation.

I AM NOT trying to sell you the Blue Car!

I am saying that I have a Blue Car. It performs really well, best I have ever driven. Has a lot of important features that I have not seen in other cars (like an engine) I have been involved in competitions with other cars, never lost. Maybe I'm a better driver? I used to drive a lot of other cars, none of them have come close to this one.
If you don't like my car, that's fine. You don't have to buy one. I still believe it's the best one, and will be happy to tell you why.

You seem to want to get caught up in a never ending discussion of what is wrong with my car based on who built it, the reports in the consumer report guide that YOU subscribe to, And the way it looks at a distance.

That's fine, as it seems to be what you really enjoy. I suspect that is the end result of philosophy. Personally, I would rather have something that has an actual practical value, rather than making me more cynical, and critical towards the people I am put into contact with.

thank you for both recognizing that I am amazing, and for continuing with the auto-sales metaphor. I say you are trying to "sell it to me" only because you said earlier that your mythological first few commandments "applied to me" when I clearly find that offensive, and already believe in the other non-supernatural cmdmts. I wasn't referring to the rest of your beliefs, just those few commandments that are supernatural in nature. Sorry if I didn't sufficiently narrow the focus of my comments.

I do have to look at the source of things and other aspects before I accept them, but I don't see that as a failing, it is a boon. It means I will never be able to blame any one, thing, or circumstance for my failures, nor will I need to credit anyone else with my successes.

I still see you bitching about me, rather than talking through any of the substantive stuff that I have said.

My foundations are based on history, fact and reason, not on something allegedly the word, will and essence of god...Who's "foundations" are skewed, here?

You can't back-up, prove, justify, support, or establish any part of the supernatural aspect of yours or anyone else's religion.

That is why people should leave that part out during discussions, if they can't hold their tongue. You still have not apologized for saying that the first commandments applied to me, and that is really bad form. You also have not discussed the thought experiments, the factual bible source problems, the contradictions with your earlier statements about being right but not claiming to be right, and all the other substantive stuff. Re-read all my earlier posts and take to heart that stuff. If you can't parse even these simple posts because of some perceived threat to your faith or a seeming lack of understanding on my part, whay are you even wasting your time?

You keep saying my way is the "same old thing" which is clearly a lie, or at least a misstatement of history and fact. You prefer to insult my methods, withoud really resolving those aspects of yours that I am pointing out as lacking, although I continue to address your criticisms.

Our society has gone so PC, that judging prejudice has morphed into all judgment.
I can judge you, your methods, and perspective...I would never judge your beliefs, except for the supernatural stuff which must be judged as wrong in all religions.

To not judge it wrong is to literally live in a fantasy world.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

thank you for both recognizing that I am amazing, and for continuing with the auto-sales metaphor. I say you are trying to "sell it to me" only because you said earlier that your mythological first few commandments "applied to me"

And you continue to be...
Please don't put " " marks around something I did not say. Yeah, I know YOU will say that I implied it... again.
The car analogy will work, I was actually going to use a go-kart one, but since you started the car, let's drive...
Me saying that "all ten commandments are relevant" is not me saying you must believe them, you chose what you want, if you don't like what I say you have free will to ignore me. I don't see why you would get mad over it, seems immature to me, but to each his own.
What my statement does mean is that they are an intregal part of the blue car, and separating them is not an option.
You don't want the blue car? Move along to something else. Don't waste time telling me the blue car is POS. Especially when your experience with it is very limited.

AB you miss the point that this whole thing will not be resolved.
Every statement you make directed at me can be turned on you with every bit of relevance and more. I have read your posts, I did not agree at the very beginning, further explanation of the same data doesn't make it any different.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

What my statement does mean is that they are an intregal part of the blue car, and separating them is not an option.
You don't want the blue car? Move along to something else. Don't waste time telling me the blue car is POS. Especially when your experience with it is very limited.

I never said your car was a pos, just that one of its hubcaps didn't match.
My experience with it is greater than yours, at least as a scholar, clearly.
The supernatural is not an integral part of anything, precisely because it is SUPERnatural.
And finally, I will not discuss religion with you any more because your mind and mine can't recognize the other's point. I see you still missing every important thing I say, and I can't take any dogmatic commitment on your part to the supernatural seriously...It all just seems like mental illness, in the face of all the contrary evidence, and more importantly the fact that the supernatural does not make the life-lessons any better or more valid or applicable. Including the supernatural reduces the veracity of any life lessons, because they now exclude non-believers...Pretty piss-poor plan for a divine figure...

You absolutely said all of the 10 cmdmts were important, I just couldn't recognize the relevance...Relence means applicable in a particular way to a particular person, when used the way you did. Most use of quotation marks was as "scare-quotes" because I can use the "quote" feature in the interface...Try looking back a bit farther...You will find where you deeply offended me; I have since asked for an apology several times, and still have not gotten one.[edit: I apologize, you did apologize, and I did extrapolate a bit of applicabilty...Sorry]

Talking about this has been nearly impossible because of the diatribes we both post, which is then followed by some form of rebuttal by the other. Non-productive, unpersuasive, and not a way to have any kind of argument or exchange of ideas.



So, I propose two things:

First:
No more god talk to eachother. I have a sense we would get along famously if this stuff hadn't intruded.

And second:
No more god talk to eachother.

Meet you in another thread...Wait 'til we get to politics....

[leelover]

I think the issue here, for me anyway, is that I don't agree with your assertions regarding the irrelevance of anything supernatural.
I made the summation long ago on here, and much further ago elsewhere, that there are a lot of things that cannot be "proven".
If I choose to believe they are important and relevant to me that is my own responsibility. You cannot force your belief that I am wrong to put faith in things that I have seen enough evidence of in my own life to trust. We all walk different roads on our journeys, what I have been through may not relate to you in a way that means anything. But that doesn't lessen the impact to me. Even if it is labeled only emoting or irrational. Maybe it is .
But then that definition comes from those who only believe what can be proven in a scientific way. And by this I don't mean you, AB. I am speaking of those who dictate the boundaries of how truth is evaluated. If I don't fit in to those boundaries, and am judged to be mentally deficient, so be it. That is where every discussion or debate about something SUPERnatural will begin and end.
So, that's OK with me, we don't talk to each other about God.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

I think the issue here, for me anyway, is that I don't agree with your assertions regarding the irrelevance of anything supernatural.

If I choose to believe they are important and relevant to me that is my own responsibility.

I meant that only in debate; that the supernatural was irrelevant because the conversation has its limit with "because god said so" or something like that, a proposition or mythological sequence that even believers of the same thing are in conflict about. I accept that for you, they absolutely are relevant and an integral part of your faith.
I will always raise the exclusionary corollary, as it goes hand in hand by necessity with belief, but that doesn't mean you are bad or anything, just that your quest for truth was (my opinion, here...clear the lane) satisfied with too little justification and evidence.

Originally Posted by leelover

You cannot force your belief that I am wrong to put faith in things that I have seen enough evidence of in my own life to trust. Even if it is labeled only emoting or irrational. Maybe it is .
But then that definition comes from those who only believe what can be proven in a scientific way.

I don't believe you are wrong, I KNOW that anyone who has a specific supernatural belief must be wrong, as far as any absolute nature of truth goes. You once mentioned a metaphor regarding fishing in deep water because the tackle is different out there...Where we started was shallow, where you are is deeper, but the subtle point about generalizations being impossible with the supernatural, and a genuine search for universally applicable principles to live by, is deeper still, because it trancends the necessity for a divine character, and really forces us to be responsible with our freewill. The good man does the right thing when nobody is watching...

If you have seen evidence of the supernatural, why are you talking about it on a motorcycle bulletin board? It should be front page news, or on Dan Rather Reports(Tm)...There is not a single supernatural event tied to a dogma or principle of an established religion that can not be dismissed as insignificant by non-believers. If it takes faith in something to make it true, it can't really be true. Truth precedes knowledge.

Actually, that last part you mention, about emoting and irrationality came from Descartes, who undertook the study of philosophy to prove the existence of god, and actually came to believe more fully and deeply in the christian paradigm and the bible, but with the acceptance of the irrational nature of that kind of belief.

Originally Posted by leelover

And by this I don't mean you, AB. I am speaking of those who dictate the boundaries of how truth is evaluated. If I don't fit in to those boundaries, and am judged to be mentally deficient, so be it. That is where every discussion or debate about something SUPERnatural will begin and end.
So, that's OK with me, we don't talk to each other about God.

That is the way it shapes up. That is not to denegrate the faithful, nor is it to ridicule any particular faith, but it does call into question any absolutism, even if only implied, by the faithful.

Yeah, my best friend and I do not talk about Rage Against the Machine, because I lov'em and he thinks they are contrived, wanna-be anarchists, with a muddled and distorted Marxist message. We have had really good blow-outs on account of those dudes...