Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. I don't want to be anything like the homocidal sadistic maniac that is the god of the bible. Please don't make assumptions about us. I'm not pissed, I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. If we had a device that were plastered on everyone's forehead that could calculate all the chemistry and physics of the mind and spit out the "unified message" that we all could agree on, then that would be great, but we don't. Until then, we are left to learn or know each other to really understand what the other is thinking. Again, my impression of him was different than most because I believe I can identify with what he was writing vs. what most here would agree on. I will concede that I never had seen any of the posts in the Spirituality forum. Might have swayed my mind. I am basing my opinion of your thread. But until we have a relationship with the guy, all we have is limited data. And limited data is less accurate. You can't even tell that we don't hate Foak. You admit you have no clue what happened in the spirituality forum but you don't let your complete ignorance stop you from passing judgement on us. You say you were basing this on my thread but I was polite to Foak. You form your opinion without checking the facts. You're not listening. Let's say everyone was nice...which they mostly were. What I am trying to convey is you all were demanding that he respond or learn to respond by the manner (facts and logic) that you required. Yes, people asked him nicely...and directly, but if he was unable to recognize those means, those tools, communication is doomed. Why must he have communicated in your new language. Each of you has been Christian before or religious. Surely you recognize the Christianeze from the past? Facts, logic, and evidence is not merely "our new language", it is the framework that has existed for centuries and came to prominence in the Age of Enlightenment when humans first stepped outside of religious belief in large numbers. Foak's problem is that he left xianity only to jump directly onto another spiritual bandwagon, completely bypassing the chance to understand the language of logic and evidence that has been available for several centuries. We are trying to help Foak by exposing him the the language and framework that is used outside xianity and spirituality that has led to the scientific and technological advances that he, you and all of us benefit from on a daily basis. I know this is hard for you to understand because you ascribe value to the framework used in an ancient book, which reflects the worldview present in the society and time in which it was written. We ascribe value to a framework developed much later, as humans evolved beyond religion. Thank you, this I can consider. He seemed very frustrated an angry because no one could understand his "language". Then it appeared to me that a demand for him to change, and then the usual tear the person to shreds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 End, here is what foak did. You are either not paying attention, or you are just building a straw man to be annoying. 1. He unequivocally stated he was NOT a Christian 2. He unequivocally stated he did NOT belong to any religion 3. He stated that his understanding of God was a panentheistic one (God is the universe, note NOT the Christian God) 4. He was understood and respectfully engaged in the Spirituality forum 5. Instead of being happy with that he came here to insult us for trying to have a rational conversation; rational conservation IS the only way to have a reasoned discussion 6. He was free to remain in the Spirituality forum and continue with metaphysical dialog, but chose NOT to What part of the above don't you understand? It doesn't matter. He may have had multiple issues reaching very deep and was acting on the surface contrary to who he would like to be. You would not know this unless you continued a dialogue, a relationship. Um... We didn't get mad and storm away. foak did that. Accept the fact that the blame does not lie with us, End3. Look around, how many of my type do you see left due to the friendlies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I DID notice you put it in the Coliseum. What stood out to me was that he had to change himself based on the type of argument that goes on here...logic and facts. What I saw was he doesn't communicate with those same tools. And there were repeated demands to put the facts and argument out there until it got ugly. I think Orbit was the only one that I read that used the word terms when offering him a method to disclose his argument. And for that matter, he already had. You are only complaining because Foak is a believer and his opponents were not. When Mormons knock on your door do you invite them in and listen to them without questioning until you are ready to join the Mormon Church? Is joining the Mormon Church a sacrifice you are willing to make to Love strangers? I bet you do the very thing you complain about above. If a non-believer tells you that he can prove your God is not real, the proof is inside you and all around you and all you need to do is get to know yourself do you accept it? Of course you don't. No, I'm not suggesting changing beliefs. I'm suggesting having the maturity and wisdom to understand their path and place on that path so they might be known...to be heard and understood and accepted. All of that already happened. Why are you pissed off if you already got what you wanted? Foak was understood, Foak had a place, Foak was known, Foak was heard, Foak was accepted. Then he threw a fit and left. Why are you ranting at us over what Foak did? I'm not pissed, I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. . . . Hypocrisy...again! If you accept science (which you say you do) then there is no place in your life for Christianity. Reality is best described by science and science shows us that Christianity is false. You can't have it both ways, End . . . Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. If we had a device that were plastered on everyone's forehead that could calculate all the chemistry and physics of the mind and spit out the "unified message" that we all could agree on, then that would be great, but we don't. Until then, we are left to learn or know each other to really understand what the other is thinking. Again, my impression of him was different than most because I believe I can identify with what he was writing vs. what most here would agree on. I will concede that I never had seen any of the posts in the Spirituality forum. Might have swayed my mind. I am basing my opinion of your thread. But until we have a relationship with the guy, all we have is limited data. And limited data is less accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. IOW, everything you see confirms your preconceptions. You can't demonstrate the former as that's your own perception, but you have not in any way demonstrated the later, even though you claim it's been demonstrated here. You are going to have to please tell me what you are considering former and latter. Let me start, yes it confirms my preconceptions. I think reality adequately has demonstrated my preconceptions, you don't? So what latter are you describing...you lost me. Hypocrisy! If you accept science (as you claim to do so) it shows us that reality refutes the Bible. You can't have it both ways, hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. How is my view of a mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have anything to do with each other? This is mind boggling to me Prof. Totally independent of each other.... Do you not realize that steps 4 and 5, which you reference as the point at which the break down happened to foak, both involve the relationship between jesus and god and said relationship being applied between people? I'm assuming you wrote these steps youself. How can you not know what they say? You wrote with the assumption that because foak believed in a god, it must necessarily be the same one you believe in. That is what your mechanism for understanding and his beliefs have to do with one another. You built your understanding of foak upon a false assumption that you made about him, which then led to you completely misunderstanding him. Not even close. The mechanism would work independently of the object. What does that even mean? And how does that relate to your assumption that foak believes that jesus is god? I never assumed anything about his beliefs nor does it matter in any way that you are describing. I can apply the mechanism and it will work or not work regardless of whether the person believes any which way. Additionally, it's more likely designed to reach a person who DOESN'T believe. Interpret the Acts verse any way you want, but one is "each heard in their own language". He WAS heard in his own language, in the Spirituality forum, and CHOSE not to pursue that. Maybe you didn't read where I said I was basing my discussion off of the way he was treated once it moved to the coliseum? The Colloseum thread and the Spirituality forum happened at the same time. The Colloseum thread was perfectly polite until foak started to be passive aggressive and then started to insult everyone in a very condescending way. We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Look around, how many of my type do you see left due to the friendlies here. That still cannot be blamed on us, End3. The rules are posted at the front door of The Lion's Den. I don't feel the need to go onto christian websites and preach science and atheism, because I know 1.) they don't want to hear it and 2.) my words would be met with stiff resistance and deaf ears. christians who come here do so of their own free will because they all think they have some trick we haven't already seen. If they meet stiff resistance and can't handle it, that's their own problem, not ours. We warned them at the door. Besides, do you really think the goal here is to fill this place with christians? And do you think they would come and stay just because we're nice? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. IOW, everything you see confirms your preconceptions. You can't demonstrate the former as that's your own perception, but you have not in any way demonstrated the later, even though you claim it's been demonstrated here. You are going to have to please tell me what you are considering former and latter. Let me start, yes it confirms my preconceptions. I think reality adequately has demonstrated my preconceptions, you don't? So what latter are you describing...you lost me. Hypocrisy! If you accept science (as you claim to do so) it shows us that reality refutes the Bible. You can't have it both ways, hypocrite. When they get a brain reader that works BAA, you holler at me and we will talk. Until then, you have near zilch to stand on. Thx for the glacially stupid answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. The naked hypocrisy of someone who claims to uphold science, but who clearly doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Look around, how many of my type do you see left due to the friendlies here.That still cannot be blamed on us, End3. The rules are posted at the front door of The Lion's Den. I don't feel the need to go onto christian websites and preach science and atheism, because I know 1.) they don't want to hear it and 2.) my words would be met with stiff resistance and deaf ears. christians who come here do so of their own free will because they all think they have some trick we haven't already seen. If they meet stiff resistance and can't handle it, that's their own problem, not ours. We warned them at the door. Besides, do you really think the goal here is to fill this place with christians? And do you think they would come and stay just because we're nice? If you want to have a place were you rationalize being rude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 Look around, how many of my type do you see left due to the friendlies here. Is this what you are really getting at? You made up a huge pile of nonsense and misinformation and when you can't back it up you whine about the lack of Christians on an EXchristian website. There are thousands of websites for Christians to fellowship with each other. More power to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 If you want to have a place were you rationalize being rude... You forget that Foak started that. And he kept turning it up until he got rude back. For me Foak broke the camel's back when he demanded that the entire community apologize to him. Up until that point I was trying to have that connection you keep whining about. Hey did it occur to you that Foak shouldn't have laughed at the moderators or disobeyed their instructions? Of course not. As the believer Foak is the innocent victim and the heathen are guilty! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? And where we immediately support him? Why, yes, that would be the one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Let me break it down so you can see where my opinion of the process failed. 1) There is God 2) Jesus is One with God through an obedient and perfect relationship with God 3) Then there is us 4) Jesus asks us and prays that we will have the same relationship with Him that He has with God so that all are One. 5) Then asks us to have that relationship with others. In my opinion, the breakdown happened to Foak between mechanism steps 4 and 5. The parallel is this: If you want to get to Understanding, then this mechanism is more true than demanding that the people of step 5 adhere to the beliefs of step 4. And it appears to me that the non-believer step two in not the Grace and Sacrifice of Christ, but facts and logic. You tell me how Foak in place five now sees your truth. Um... End3, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but foak gave the specific impression that he was not a christian, meaning, by implication that he did not believe in jesus, or that jesus was god. For someone who has denigrated the rest of us for not trying to understand him, it would appear that you misunderstood him most of all. This is so. Foak quoted the Gospel of Thomas, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65209-my-soul-and-i/?hl=thomas#.VD2D2vldUuk Which makes him a heretic and probably a mystic, but definitely no kind of Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I'm not going to read that diarrhea. What's you're point? I felt the Glorious need to bring the Word. John seventeen is all about the series of relationships between God and humanity. Given we all would want to be Godly by whatever standard we use, the aforementioned is a wonderful mechanism that is relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you all how many damn times I have heard, "Christians just want to preach....they don't even take the time to know us". Wow, just wow, that here it is in John 17. Read em and weep my brother. I don't want to be anything like the homocidal sadistic maniac that is the god of the bible. Please don't make assumptions about us. I'm not pissed, I just find it to the point that this reality demonstrates my belief in Christianity. Secondly, it demonstrates that reality doesn't offer the immediate rational output that people demand here. If we had a device that were plastered on everyone's forehead that could calculate all the chemistry and physics of the mind and spit out the "unified message" that we all could agree on, then that would be great, but we don't. Until then, we are left to learn or know each other to really understand what the other is thinking. Again, my impression of him was different than most because I believe I can identify with what he was writing vs. what most here would agree on. I will concede that I never had seen any of the posts in the Spirituality forum. Might have swayed my mind. I am basing my opinion of your thread. But until we have a relationship with the guy, all we have is limited data. And limited data is less accurate. You can't even tell that we don't hate Foak. You admit you have no clue what happened in the spirituality forum but you don't let your complete ignorance stop you from passing judgement on us. You say you were basing this on my thread but I was polite to Foak. You form your opinion without checking the facts. You're not listening. Let's say everyone was nice...which they mostly were. What I am trying to convey is you all were demanding that he respond or learn to respond by the manner (facts and logic) that you required. Yes, people asked him nicely...and directly, but if he was unable to recognize those means, those tools, communication is doomed. Why must he have communicated in your new language. Each of you has been Christian before or religious. Surely you recognize the Christianeze from the past? Facts, logic, and evidence is not merely "our new language", it is the framework that has existed for centuries and came to prominence in the Age of Enlightenment when humans first stepped outside of religious belief in large numbers. Foak's problem is that he left xianity only to jump directly onto another spiritual bandwagon, completely bypassing the chance to understand the language of logic and evidence that has been available for several centuries. We are trying to help Foak by exposing him the the language and framework that is used outside xianity and spirituality that has led to the scientific and technological advances that he, you and all of us benefit from on a daily basis. I know this is hard for you to understand because you ascribe value to the framework used in an ancient book, which reflects the worldview present in the society and time in which it was written. We ascribe value to a framework developed much later, as humans evolved beyond religion. Thank you, this I can consider. He seemed very frustrated an angry because no one could understand his "language". Then it appeared to me that a demand for him to change, and then the usual tear the person to shreds... That happens a lot in the Den. It's what we Lion's do. Our playground, our rules. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted October 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Look around, how many of my type do you see left due to the friendlies here.That still cannot be blamed on us, End3. The rules are posted at the front door of The Lion's Den. I don't feel the need to go onto christian websites and preach science and atheism, because I know 1.) they don't want to hear it and 2.) my words would be met with stiff resistance and deaf ears. christians who come here do so of their own free will because they all think they have some trick we haven't already seen. If they meet stiff resistance and can't handle it, that's their own problem, not ours. We warned them at the door. Besides, do you really think the goal here is to fill this place with christians? And do you think they would come and stay just because we're nice? If you want to have a place were you rationalize being rude... I still fail to see how asking someone who has made a positive claim to provide support for that claim could be considered rude. Is it because you know that we know that most of the claims made by believers cannot be supported? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? And where we immediately support him? Why, yes, that would be the one! I got ya, There were a sum TWO of you in that conversation. The rest of this site acted like they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 That happens a lot in the Den. It's what we Lion's do. Our playground, our rules. Rationalization for being rude. While you're at it captain science, marry rude with science....take your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????And where we immediately support him? Why, yes, that would be the one!I got ya, There were a sum TWO of you in that conversation. The rest of this site acted like they always do. You should remember, End, that the Spirituality forum, where foak posted what you referred to is a protected forum and not all members of ExC have permission to post there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? And where we immediately support him? Why, yes, that would be the one! I got ya, There were a sum TWO of you in that conversation. The rest of this site acted like they always do. So now there is a required number of people for support? The Spirituality forum doesn't get a lot traffic. But it's the quality, not the quantity that matters here. He had a place where there were 2 people willing to talk to him on his own level, and he thumbed his nose at it and decided instead to insult people on this thread. This is not the fault of the people here at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I still fail to see how asking someone who has made a positive claim to provide support for that claim could be considered rude. Is it because you know that we know that most of the claims made by believers cannot be supported? No, not at all. The guy comes in with a problem. If it had been a non-believer, there would have been multiple multiple offers for understanding. He had some and then honest, direct questioning about his views. When no one would hear the language in which he expressed his views, there was more pressure and demands for him to state his position in resident terms. I think he got frustrated and mad. Basically, people here do facts and logic and it's my opinion that this only addresses part of reality.....or until facts and logic complete the picture, if possible. I personally don't believe that will come to pass. I really think people shift to emphasis on facts, logic, and science to compensate for whatever harm religion did. I choose both and don't think science will ever dismiss Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 When they get a brain reader that works BAA, you holler at me and we will talk. Until then, you have near zilch to stand on. Thx for the glacially stupid answer. Better stupid than a liar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 We are talking "The Soul and I"? The thread where he immediately comes out and apologizes for his problems???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? And where we immediately support him? Why, yes, that would be the one! I got ya, There were a sum TWO of you in that conversation. The rest of this site acted like they always do. If I had found that conversation interesting I would have joined it, but I didn't, so I stayed out of it. It's not my fault that foak wasn't happy with that conversation and came here to lash out at us for not agreeing with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 That happens a lot in the Den. It's what we Lion's do. Our playground, our rules. Rationalization for being rude. While you're at it captain science, marry rude with science....take your time. End, one day you might eventually wake up and realize that the Den will never be the place you want it to be be or that you think it should be. Today doesn't seem to be that day, however. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 I still fail to see how asking someone who has made a positive claim to provide support for that claim could be considered rude. Is it because you know that we know that most of the claims made by believers cannot be supported? No, not at all. The guy comes in with a problem. If it had been a non-believer, there would have been multiple multiple offers for understanding. He had some and then honest, direct questioning about his views. When no one would hear the language in which he expressed his views, there was more pressure and demands for him to state his position in resident terms. I think he got frustrated and mad. Basically, people here do facts and logic and it's my opinion that this only addresses part of reality.....or until facts and logic complete the picture, if possible. I personally don't believe that will come to pass. I really think people shift to emphasis on facts, logic, and science to compensate for whatever harm religion did. I choose both and don't think science will ever dismiss Christianity. End you are making things up. That isn't what happened. Doesn't the Bible say that you shall not bear false witness? You are being a false witness. Do you even care if you are bearing false witness? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Here's the answer you wanted, End...again. . . . Oh good God BAA, what prediction would that be. And cite numbers please. http://en.wikipedia....wave_background "The CMB spectrum has become the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature." And no, I can't cite you the numbers, because... "The error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve" The prediction is a perfect description of reality because it's impossible to see any difference between the prediction (made in 1980) and the observations - made by three different satellites. . . . That perfect prediction is part of the very theory that predicts a multiverse, End. So the evidence for a multiverse is supported by the most perfectly confirmed prediction ever made in science. Read it and weep, hypocrite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts