O.K. then what or who is God?

[Jakester 10]

That the presence of God can be anywhere which is what i believe, without necessary having a comprehention or definition of what God is, or an image as such.

 

I'll ask you the same question,but its getting late so save it for another time now.

 

Do you also believe in fairy's at the bottom of your garden?

 

Do you seriously believe in something that has no evidence to back it up but for a book of fairy tales? Talking of that i'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbitt next week!

 

If anyone finds having faith helps them through their life then I can accept that. It's when they start attempting to brainwash others with their inane ramblings that I become offended.

 

I also find it impossible and laughable that people who believe in "Gods" cannot engage in reasoned debate but have some irrational brainwashing which prevents them from actual reality.

[RootsBooster 24]

Do you also believe in fairy's at the bottom of your garden?

 

Do you seriously believe in something that has no evidence to back it up but for a book of fairy tales? Talking of that i'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbitt next week!

 

If anyone finds having faith helps them through their life then I can accept that.

You say that, yet you've just had a pop at Janie for it

 

It's when they start attempting to brainwash others with their inane ramblings that I become offended.

...which Janie wasn't doing

I also find it impossible and laughable that people who believe in "Gods" cannot engage in reasoned debate but have some irrational brainwashing which prevents them from actual reality.

I find that you get more out of them if you don't go on the attack. Janie gave her answer to Lockjaw and you've attacked her for it.

[Jakester 10]

You say that, yet you've just had a pop at Janie for it

 

 

...which Janie wasn't doing

 

I find that you get more out of them if you don't go on the attack. Janie gave her answer to Lockjaw and you've attacked her for it.

 

Please read my post and understand it before replying and making a fool of yourself.

 

The first two sentences apply to the poster. I then generalise in my concluding two sentences by using the words "anyone" and "people" to emphasise my point.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Jakester

[dafodil 10]

O.K. I give in ,It seems as though no one can answer my original question.

Maybe I should join the Salvation Army, The ladies uniform looks nice.

[mikem8634 10]

 

 

I perceive no meaning in them, which is why asked you what you found meaningful in them. Your response is even more cryptic than the poems themselves.

 

Just for clarification, are you stating that the poems have no meaning, that they do have meaning but you do not value it or that you are unable to perceive their meaning? Or another interpretation that I have not thought of?

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2012 at 14:44 ----------

 

Do you also believe in fairy's at the bottom of your garden?

 

Do you seriously believe in something that has no evidence to back it up but for a book of fairy tales? Talking of that i'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbitt next week!

 

If anyone finds having faith helps them through their life then I can accept that. It's when they start attempting to brainwash others with their inane ramblings that I become offended.

 

"If anyone finds having faith helps them through their life then I can accept that." If that really is the case then why use terminology that displays no respect and belittles the faith that others hold? Terms like fairy tales and questions such as do you also believe in fairy's at the bottom of your garden? carry an undeniable seem of condescension and imply that religious faith is childish.

 

I also find it impossible and laughable that people who believe in "Gods" cannot engage in reasoned debate but have some irrational brainwashing which prevents them from actual reality.

 

Personally, I find it laughable that people make sweeping generalisations about people who believe in gods.

Edited December 10, 2012 by mikem8634

[Lockjaw 11]

Please read my post and understand it before replying and making a fool of yourself.

 

The first two sentences apply to the poster. I then generalise in my concluding two sentences by using the words "anyone" and "people" to emphasise my point.

 

...but

 

I also find it impossible and laughable that people who believe in "Gods" cannot engage in reasoned debate but have some irrational brainwashing which prevents them from actual reality.

 

Indeed, your last sentence is a generalisation. It means "all people who believe in gods". You might not have meant it to, but it does. This, obviously, includes Janie.

 

Please read your own posts carefully before you reply and make a fool of yourself.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2012 at 14:54 ----------

 

"If anyone finds having faith helps them through their life then I can accept that." If that really is the case then why use terminology that displays no respect and belittles the faith that others hold? .

 

Probably because he didn't say he respects it, just that he can accept it.

[mikem8634 10]

 

Probably because he didn't say he respects it, just that he can accept it.

 

Fair point - but that then begs the question if acceptance precludes respect why does it not preclude disrespect?

[Lockjaw 11]

Fair point - but that then begs the question if acceptance precludes respect why does it not preclude disrespect?

 

Well, it doesn't really because that's not what "begs the question" means but let's not split hairs.

 

On your actual point, why should it? He's saying that he accepts that some people believe some stuff he thinks is nonsense. There's no reason that should have any bearing at all on whether he respects that or not. The acceptance is there because he knows it to be true. Respect/disrespect is based on his opinion, not facts.

 

Having said that, I do agree with your overriding meaning that wading in on the attack with points that have been made countless times before is unlikely to stimulate the intellectual debate he implies he would prefer to see.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Lockjaw

[mikem8634 10]

Well, it doesn't really because that's not what "begs the question" means but let's not split hairs.

 

Even your own link contains this - Most authorities now view the current 'raise the question' meaning as acceptable.

 

On your actual point, why should it? He's saying that he accepts that some people believe some stuff he thinks is nonsense. There's no reason that should have any bearing at all on whether he respects that or not. The acceptance is there because he knows it to be true. Respect/disrespect is based on his opinion, not facts.

 

Quite right. Acceptance carries no inherent weighting of respect or disrespect. Some of the terms used, however, were redolent of disrespect which suggests that his position may not have been as neutral as mere acceptance implies. Which is what I was questioning in the first place.

 

Having said that, I do agree with your overriding meaning that, wading in on the attack with points that have been made countless times before is unlikely to stimulate the intellectual debate he implies he would prefer to see.

 

Agreed.

[RootsBooster 24]

Please read my post and understand it before replying and making a fool of yourself.

Ah, insults, the trademark of a man who knows he is right

The first two sentences apply to the poster.

Yes, where you mocked her beliefs

I then generalise in my concluding two sentences by using the words "anyone" and "people" to emphasise my point.

So Janie isn't included in "anyone" or "people" ?

[Lockjaw 11]

Even your own link contains this - Most authorities now view the current 'raise the question' meaning as acceptable.

 

I know - I like to provide a balanced argument.

 

Doesn't make it right though! Just because loads of people, including the entire BBC, use a phrase incorrectly for a bit means it takes on that incorrect meaning? Madness.

 

Pesky ever-evolving language!

[PaliRichard 10]

Yeah, fair point.

 

I guess I meant religious theists or, probably, followers of religions which promote ideas involving gods, miracles, afterlives and other such ideas ... bit long, though.

 

 

Buddhism has its fair share of miracles and afterlife though.

 

The only difference I can see between myself and some religious posters is that whereas many of them claim something to be the truth and when questioned refuse to answer/sidestep the question I don't claim anything to be the truth and openly admit that where scientific study is concerned there are difficulties.

 

Does this stop me believing it?

 

No, but it does lead me to do some looking at why I believe it or have difficulty with it where evidence is concerned - and I will always answer questions to the best of my ability even if that means simply saying 'I'm sorry I don't know' or 'That does present difficulties in light of the evidence'.

 

Going back to the original point I made which you agreed with - I find it most frustrating when the religious make excuses for or avoid questions, and as I said the only reason I can see for that is that they have such poor faith in what they claim they dare not admit that there may be flaws with it.

 

Incedentally I have also come accross my fair share of Buddhists who call it a philosophy rather than a religion because they like to pretend it doesn't have any supernatural elements - each to their own but such an apologist attitude is not for me, I'd rather admit such elements present difficulties rather than just pretend they don't exist.