[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Thanks for your unsolicited opinion of my abilities once again. I know that this is important to you and your style of "debate", so go ahead, swing away!

"If it makes you happy..."

This isn't debate, it is ad hominem attack...Get a grip. You are not important to me, nor is calling you names...It is just fun.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

By posting a reply to my comment, you are soliciting my opinion...What are you, a retard? Hey! Retard! Try reading a retarded book! Wait, you do that exclusively already...

You can't debate, you know fairly little about not very much, you are incapable of responding thoughtfully to anything that challenges your faith or expresses an opinion that differs from your little comfort zone, you cloak your ignorance in faith, you first insult me, and then you get mad when I insult you back? Blow me, dickweed.

Life according to Analogbear...

You call me a variety of names, go on and on with a plethora of terms and suppositions, make statements then change them, or at least their application, and STILL miss the main point!!!!

Your whole post that I made reference to is YOUR BELIEF!!!

Are you so wrapped up in your self that you cannot understand anything else? Are you so small and limited in mind that you believe all you write is without fault?

Why is it OK for you to spout YOUR beliefs, if it is not OK for others to share theirs? You really can't see the disparity there?

[leelover]

I think it is sad that the world seems to think that science and the pursuit of God (religion) must contradict each other.
There are so many things that are mysteries to us at this point, and may always be so. Does our limited ability to explain them mean that a Creator could not have orchestrated their interconnection? Does our incomplete understanding of things beyond our mind's abilities mean that we should disregard, or diminish, the importance of the lessons that we can read and apply?
The Bible is so much more than a plan of eternal Salvation (which it is), and a simple code of conduct (which it is). It goes beyond the words of man to touch places in our lives that only Our Creator can go. It holds the keys to true life. Who dares to look that deeply? It is much easier to try to discredit it, and ignore it's impact, though it is unavoidable.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Your whole post that I made reference to is YOUR BELIEF!!!

Why is it OK for you to spout YOUR beliefs, if it is not OK for others to share theirs? You really can't see the disparity there?

Again, an opinion about faith generally, is not a system of belief.

A recitation of the historical position of several major religions upon entering the Dark Ages is not a system of belief.

I have not shared any part of my belief system, other than the fact that I accept the existence of God...But I have stated clearly that your idea of God is what might be called a personal God (not my opinion, just what it is Biblicly), and mine might be called an impersonal God (because the nature of an infinite consciousness, if it even is conscious that is, can't be understood or explained, so acceptance of possible existence without any pareticular ritualistic or dogmatic structure is the most faith one could rationally have)

Originally Posted by leelover

I think it is sad that the world seems to think that science and the pursuit of God (religion) must contradict each other.
There are so many things that are mysteries to us at this point, and may always be so. Does our limited ability to explain them mean that a Creator could not have orchestrated their interconnection? Does our incomplete understanding of things beyond our mind's abilities mean that we should disregard, or diminish, the importance of the lessons that we can read and apply?
The Bible is so much more than a plan of eternal Salvation (which it is), and a simple code of conduct (which it is). It goes beyond the words of man to touch places in our lives that only Our Creator can go. It holds the keys to true life. Who dares to look that deeply? It is much easier to try to discredit it, and ignore it's impact, though it is unavoidable.

Certainly, a creator could have but there is no evidence that he did; and that is why science and religion really differ...Science accepts its limitations, and though it looks for answers, clearly there are problems accepting only what science has discovered about the natural order of the universe, if you are looking for what happened before the big bang...

Religion seeks some cosmological, moral, supernatural, and exclusive "string" theory...And explains away its lack of proof, understanding, repeatability, or tangible answers with catch-phrases like "part of God's plan" or "it's God's will" or "because the Bible (or insert pertinent religious text here) says so on page 235; but, religion focuses the sense of understanding and investigation with Humans...That is a critical error, because the universe is huge; and it seems clear, with just a few seconds of thought, that the idea that the world was the universe for ancient peoples influenced all creation myths, and should cast some doubt on any literal interpretation of the text of all of these documents. Look, history texts are fraught with many of the same issues...They are written from a perspective, with an agenda too, so many have to be read on the subject to gain a whole picture. So too with computers...No one book contains all the answers to all programming, networking, security, or application issues. Look at any worthwhile endeavor. They all require gathering intelligence and information from many sources...If God is infinite, wouldn't it stand to reason that different aspects of his infinite nature would be revealed in different texts, paths and belief systems?


A plan, not THE plan? You seem to be agreeing with me here...


Who dares to look deeply? I do, you don't. Looking deeply into any subject requires a serious approach to as many aspects of a thing as possible...If you were buying a car, would you only read the sales-material? Or, might you review other stuff like Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, etc? Did you go to school? If so, remember how, in a literature class (perhaps even in high school -though I think the lesson is a better one in college-), how a theme was presented (science fiction, medeival literature, modern lit, fact & fiction, etc) and several books on the subject were presented to gain a broader understanding about the whole subject? This lesson is blatant in the Law...To gain an understanding about the nature of the law in a particular area (and I mean a very small area, like the nature of Marital property, held in State A, as it pertains to the ascertainable value of a medical degree, license, and shares in a partnership practice for a marriage entered into in State B and originally dissolved in State C, in a current court proceeding in State D), and that can run into hundreds of judicial opinions, 20 statutes, 4 legal treatises, a local continuing legal education class, Official Practice Commentaries of a hundred or so pages for the local court, the Civil Procedure Law, etc...

Why should ascertaining the nature of God be any different?

You say you looked at other paths, but failed to see them for what they were-other aspects of an infinite being, so you stayed superficial and went with only one plan, and the most typical plan for people in certain areas of this nation. Looking to the anthropomorphic personal god of most religions is a reaction to the sense of just how small and insignificant a species we are, in the universe. One only need look at the stars with ancient eyes to see how scared the architects of the major religions were, to try to use a man to explain the universe.

[leelover]

Anologbear, when I wrote "who dares look that deeply", I meant into oneself.

You are still missing the point.

You can argue any of my points all you want to, I have said many times that we will never agree. The issues with religion, faith, God, super natural in all aspects cannot be proven to a set of standards that are possible to be agreed upon. Though my terminology in this statement may not be the most exact, it should be intuitively understood.

It doesn't matter how fast you talk, or what lofty terms you use, how vehemently you insult those who don't agree with the "wonderful gems of knowledge" you dispense, you still have to face your self, and how you stack up to what the Bible says.

Even if you "discredit" it and make your own way. The message is still the same, and undeniable in it's impact.

[sinfuldragon]

why is it that everyone wants everyone else to keep an open mind about things but they themselves aren't willing to look outside their own box?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

you still have to face your self, and how you stack up to what the Bible says.

Even if you "discredit" it and make your own way. The message is still the same, and undeniable in it's impact.

I still can't believe you waste your time trying to either insult me or get me to accept the bible as anything more than a polemic written by and for political and social purposes. If you approached my posts with the same grace you would expect of me in reading or accepting the bible, you might learn something. Live a sermon, don't give me one.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

why is it that everyone wants everyone else to keep an open mind about things but they themselves aren't willing to look outside their own box?

My point exactly...And, if it takes literally thousands and thousands of pages, hundreds of books and tons of magazines to explain the most simple subject, why can a few hundred pages of occaisionally altered, selectively edited, and incestuously-interpreted "religious" text claim to reveal even the smallest bit of the nature of the infinite? And, even if does touch on truth (which is doubtful because of the history of the text itself) at best it only explains a tiny bit, and then how is that good or helpful?

Like a jigsaw puzzle of infinite pieces, getting only one piece, especially if they are all similar, won't help you determine if it is a snowy field, snowy tree, painting of a white wall, a refrigerator front, or whatever...More pieces are necessary, but that challenges the identity of the devout, because they use religion, religious texs and some variety of dogma as shortcut for reason, intellect, or understanding...

Ask a Catholic to explain why, if I eat my cousin's leg, I am a cannibal; but, when I take communion, and the wafer is transubstantiated into the actual body of Christ, I am not a cannibal. This is a pirating of a particular pagan riyual of dining on a sacrificial animal...Too common in religions, this outright thievery of comfortable rites to ensure an easier attempt at conversion in the ancient world...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I still can't believe you waste your time trying to either insult me or get me to accept the bible as anything more than a polemic written by and for political and social purposes. If you approached my posts with the same grace you would expect of me in reading or accepting the bible, you might learn something. Live a sermon, don't give me one.

I have not insulted you here.

I don't care if YOU accept anything I say.

Your posts preach your belief of things, that is all. Somehow you don't see that.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Your posts preach your belief of things, that is all. Somehow you don't see that.

Analysis is not belief. Look it up.

[leelover]

You know Analogbear, I have noticed something interesting. Without exception, every thread that you post in in the religious forum, you turn into a "critique" of anyone who states a belief different than your own.

I thought you tried to "practice what you preach"?

Maybe you have another agenda...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

You know Analogbear, I have noticed something interesting. Without exception, every thread that you post in in the religious forum, you turn into a "critique" of anyone who states a belief different than your own.

I thought you tried to "practice what you preach"?

Maybe you have another agenda...

I just criticise anyone who believes...Period. I levy that same criticism on myself, but you still are making a critical error...Critique, criticism, analysis, explication, opinion, etc...All of these are not beliefs.

Here is a belief, shared by many biblical scholars who are not merely Christians: Jesus was a human man, baptized by a Buddhist monk whose name became known as John...

Can you see how that is fundamentally different from what I have written before? If not, go to a dictionary and learn what criticism, analysis, and explication are...You will help yourself a great deal.

[leelover]

Still don't get it do you?
It doesn't matter if it is regarding religion, philosophy, criticism, or whatever, you are declaring what you believe to be true. And trying to make others accept it to change their behavior.

Look back at the first post you made in this thread, the one I commented on. Um, lets hope I get this right, "read every word, without bias". That whole post is something YOU believe to be true. And you are so pompous as to not see you are thrusting your beliefs on others.

Play by your own rules. Oh, yeah you can change them at will...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

Play by your own rules. Oh, yeah you can change them at will...

Let me lay it out a final time for LEE THE RETARD:

WWII happened, and there were several theaters of operation, with the end of the war coming shortly after we dropped 2 atomic devices on the Empire of Japan...


I guess you are going to say that is my belief too? **** you, dumbass.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I fully read the article, and I find it interesting that the scientist takes a zero-sum position, a nearly scientific-pose, when accepting faith...It seems, contrary to much in the world of reason, that he is using his faith to justify faith in general...A grevious intellectual error for both a person of science and a person of faith.

There is a great book (again, not a complete work on the subject, there are none, but great none the less) called The Closing of the Western Mind...The Rise of Faith and the Death of Reason in which the story of faith's seeming trump of rational principles is exposited. The Christian faith specifically (because at the time, both Judaism and Islam encouraged scientific investigation), by denouncing every type of scientific inquiry, in an attempt to centralize power, deviated from the intellectual and rational investigative principles of the Ancient Greeks, and proclaimed that faith was above reason...That it trancended reason, when in point of fact it is inferior in every tangible, intellectual, and even emotional way.

Sure, a person has faith, but the faith alone is never usually enough...Even the most devout say they have EXPERIENCED or SEEN evidence of the rightness of their faith, and that is why they feel they can justify their faith...However, this clearly seems more like it is establishing that temporal and physical issues are still the most important pragmatically for all of us. Their mere faith was insufficient until they received some message, sign, or evidence (applicable only to them, sometimes) that the Bible, the Koran, or whatever, was the truth. When challenged, they all retreat to the samr, tired, but I have seen evidence of its truth...God showed me the way...Or, the mere Jesus is the Lord! bullshit of those not even willing to take the poseur-intellectual plunge and tell others what justified their faith, but you know something did...

I think it is great that people have their faiths.

But, who cares? We don't live in times that have lots of ignorant nomads, warlords, serfs, and aboriginal chieftans that would be convinced that natural disasters or coincidences are really the work of a --personal, anthropomorphic, concerned about one species on tiny planet in the whole of the universe-- diety.

Let us all, in the manner best in keeping with the religious-freedom principles that encouraged the first colonists to establish this nation, have our faiths, but keep them to ourselves...

So you are trying to equate this bunch of garbage with actual historical events?

There can be no higher compliment than an insult from you.

[sinfuldragon]

I can see now why you two decided to stop talking to each other... perhaps you both should have stuck to that rule

[slorider18]

i knew this would happen.

[leelover]

Yeah, me too.

Sorry about the mess.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

I can see now why you two decided to stop talking to each other... perhaps you both should have stuck to that rule

We didn't decide, I asked, he agreed, and then he violated the agreement...Apparantly, a liar, and an idiot...

Originally Posted by slorider18

i knew this would happen.

Yeah, but that is what happens when people get passionate about something...And there is no greater appearance of passion and belief than from one who's soul is doubtful...I have no agenda, no specific or challengeable beliefs, so my beliefs are not even at issue, let alone in any doubt...I am sure lee thinks he believes, but, as he agreed in an old post that the application of a particular test for truth and faith was good and accurate, and he then refuted its application, I can no longer even be sure he is faithful...He is not even true to himself.

I have ignored all of his posts now, because his lack of understanding of fairly simple concepts is mindblowing...I even helped, in one older post, prove that he might actually have a justifiable faith; but he chose to argue and fight and insult instead of reading that I was possibly agreeing with him...Pathetic.

I freely admit that I get way too hot under the collar, and go for the hurtful-insult as soon as I am challenged (not my position-challenge away all you want to as long as we are talking about the same thing, I am happy to engage in the dialectic) personally, but that is instinct from too many years in the company of violent men.

Sorry Lee.


My lawyerly training and experience may never counterract my tendency to go ad hominem-ly medeival on someone's ass...That is why I do not sit on the other side of the aisle...I have insufficient charm to win the sympathy of jury and so win a large award or put a criminal away; but, I do have enough sarcasm, wit, attention to detail, focus on the objective, willingness to emotionally scar witnesses, and an ability to think well and quickly on my feet (based on my years as a Ranger and more recent formal philosophical training), to poke sufficient holes in someone else's position to force a jury to find reasonable doubt...As Dirty Harry said, a man's got to know his limitations...Mine are broad, deep, tall, and immoveable...But, I am happy enough in my little space...

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

We didn't decide, I asked, he agreed, and then he violated the agreement...Apparantly, a liar, and an idiot...


Yeah, but that is what happens when people get passionate about something...And there is no greater appearance of passion and belief than from one who's soul is doubtful...I have no agenda, no specific or challengeable beliefs, so my beliefs are not even at issue, let alone in any doubt...I am sure lee thinks he believes, but, as he agreed in an old post that the application of a particular test for truth and faith was good and accurate, and he then refuted its application, I can no longer even be sure he is faithful...He is not even true to himself.

I have ignored all of his posts now, because his lack of understanding of fairly simple concepts is mindblowing...I even helped, in one older post, prove that he might actually have a justifiable faith; but he chose to argue and fight and insult instead of reading that I was possibly agreeing with him...Pathetic.

I freely admit that I get way too hot under the collar, and go for the hurtful-insult as soon as I am challenged (not my position-challenge away all you want to as long as we are talking about the same thing, I am happy to engage in the dialectic) personally, but that is instinct from too many years in the company of violent men.

Sorry Lee.


My lawyerly training and experience may never counterract my tendency to go ad hominem-ly medeival on someone's ass...That is why I do not sit on the other side of the aisle...I have insufficient charm to win the sympathy of jury and so win a large award or put a criminal away; but, I do have enough sarcasm, wit, attention to detail, focus on the objective, willingness to emotionally scar witnesses, and an ability to think well and quickly on my feet (based on my years as a Ranger and more recent formal philosophical training), to poke sufficient holes in someone else's position to force a jury to find reasonable doubt...As Dirty Harry said, a man's got to know his limitations...Mine are broad, deep, tall, and immoveable...But, I am happy enough in my little space...

Choosing to let this sit...for now.

[ratchetman]

I take exception to this statement "Christian faith leading into the Dark Ages". It had nothing to do with the "Christian faith" and everything to do with organized religion, commingling of church and state and the Roman Catholic church. Check out the Martyr's Mirror.

[Proto]

I don't know about any of you other guys, but after reading all that I think I'm just gonna ride my bike for a while. Phew!!

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by ratchetman