[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

You can still apply Wheaton's Law though. If you went up to, say, someone who'd lost an eye calling them 'cyclops' repeatedly, would that be a nice thing to do, do you think?

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm? It's not constructive, it creates bad feeling and gives the theists ammo when they want to say how horrible the godless are. So, please, knock it off.

This is not something I would do, but it isn't a simple analogy is it. A partially sighted person isn't going round advocating oneeyedness, or even trying to convince oithers to poke an eye out are they? Religion is all about convincing others to believe in somethign that cannot be proved which results in the undermining of our society.

I maintain that I have not tried/intended to insult/bash anyone. I have been trying to make the point that using logic to try and prove god exists results in not proving him, so to then fall back on rejecting logic is plainly crackers. The only way this behaviour can be explained is by lack of education, madness or just inabilty to understand (which is stupidity).

Anyway cougar you just called me stupid

if you lack the mental capacity

I don't see why it can't have legitimacy simply because it was written by man. Some people do have good stuff to say.

it can - but then it has no more legitimacy than Aesops fables, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital or any other code to live by written by men.

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

Its a guide to help people find God, written by people who have managed to do it themselves. So I am not sure why you find that a problem, as how is that massively different to many other guide books?

Or do you write off any books that you cannot understand? If so I hope that you are alone in those thoughts or else we are going to lose a lot of scientific journals in the future.

But Teej there is nothing bad about that. I see the good bits of the bible as a pretty good guide to life, love they neighbour, do unto others etc. It's way more legitimate when written by man.

it can - but then it has no more legitimacy than Aesops fables, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital or any other code to live by written by men.

Preaching to the choir, TJ!

Religion is all about convincing others to believe in somethign that cannot be proved which results in the undermining of our society.

Don't agree with that definition.

No toys - there is not.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking - people claiming it is more than a human written code of behaviour that its reasonable to pick and chose parts of to obey. As that it is acceptable.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking

An entirely valid viewpoint.

It the lack of intellectual honesty I am attacking - people claiming it is more than a human written code of behaviour that its reasonable to pick and chose parts of to obey.

OK penny dropped, point made.

Don't agree with that definition.

It's not a definiton, it's an observation.

I maintain that I have not tried/intended to insult/bash anyone.

And I'm pointing out to you that, intentional or not, that's what you're doing. It doesn't do you - or us - any favours.

Its a guide to help people find God

It's a bloody big guide to find something that's omnipresent. (-:

richc - Member

"So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?"

Everyone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive, but you need to be careful not to confuse 'Ego' with 'Egotist' as whilst they are related they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

You could have just said 'yes'.

But cougar, you and saxon rider and others who have singled me out have been happy to bandy round the insults, you just dress them up.

I guess, that is a 'Yes' it's OK to call Atheists and Theists egotists, because everyone is. Unless someone on here claims not to have an Ego?

Next thing people will be thinking that their shit doesn't smell.

It's a bloody big guide to find something that's omnipresent. (-:

But cougar, you and saxon rider and others who have singled me out have been happy to bandy round the insults, you just dress them up.

Whatever. I'm not entering into a debate with you about this. I've made my point and asked you to play nicely (and explained why), so you can take it on board or ignore me as you see fit.

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm?

This statement attempts to use logic to tell me that I am stupid for not being able to call other people stupid without it being taken as an insult.

It assumes that insulting people is a bad thing, well I maintain that offence is something that is taken, not given. You could have offended me by calling me stupid, but you didn't.

For example if you believe that 1+1 =3 (without any evidence to prove it, and despite evidence to the contrary) then surely you must be either: poorly informed, mad or stupid. Correct?

So if you went around proselytising this I would be compelled to put you right, by starting with showing you the error of your ways, if you continue to maintain this is true because you have faith, then I have to tell you that you are either poorly informed, mad or stupid. Which is exactly what happened on this thread.

richc - Member
I guess, that is a 'Yes' it's OK to call Atheists and Theists egotists, because everyone is. Unless someone on here claims not to have an Ego?

Egotist=/=ego. What do you mean by

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego)

Next thing people will be thinking that their shit doesn't smell.

Ridiculous. I simply reject your assertion that

learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

requires either religion, religious texts or faith.

Whatever. I'm not entering into a debate with you about this. I've made my point and asked you to play nicely (and explained why), so you can take it on board or ignore me as you see fit.

So its Ok for you to call me stupid but not for me to call others either stupid, crazy or badly informed? Are you God?

I think I shall ignore you.

I maintain that offence is something that is taken

I agree, being offended is a personal choice. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to "be offensive" either.

if you believe that 1+1 =3

It does, for sufficiently large values of '1'.

I agree, being offended is a personal choice. But that doesn't mean it's not possible to "be offensive" either.

So Mr Pot, it's kettle here, is it Ok for you to "be offensive" but not me?

It does, for sufficiently large values of '1'.

Yes, but I am talking about integers and you know what I mean, I thought earlier you were in the atheist camp but this kind of obfuscation to try and score points has me somewhat worried..

So its Ok for you to call me stupid

I didn't say that. I said: "If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid" Ie, I'm only calling you stupid if you're unable to have a discussion without being offensive. Are you unable to do that?

I think I shall ignore you.

Fine.

Toys - your use of language has been rather provocative - both cougar and myself are basically on the same side as you and both have asked you if you could tone it down a bit. The theists are fragile and get easily upset when challenged - if you consider them to be mentally feeble then some kid gloves might be useful?

E

veryone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive,

It is an outdated word used by freud to describe [ metaphorically] the battle within each person.[ id, ego and super ego]. It is not really widely accepted by anyone today within psychology though it is widely used by lay people. Ther eis not brain structiure that is "ego". It is in essence a belief by Freud and his claim is untestable. It is more like religion and faith than it is like a fact.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego)

So to save myself and life for ever in paradise I first need to accept that I am not important as that is how I save myself and live for ever.

Saving yourself for an eternity in happiness cannot be considered to be a selfless act however you wish to try and argue it is… the motivation is, quite literally, to save yourself - self interest so presumably "egotistical"

I didn't say that. I said: "If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid" Ie, I'm only calling you stupid if you're unable to have a discussion without being offensive. Are you unable to do that?

This is exacltly the same as me saying if you can't get with the logic of only believing in that which you can prove rather than believing something is true because you cannot disprove it then you are stupid.

Teej I get the point. I got it from the beginning, which is patently obvious considering I hastily and heavily revised my definitions throughout. Some people just choose to be insulted as means to delegitimize the other side. Everyone has been offensive in some way. I am just more honest about it, and Cougar unfortunatly hoisted himself so I coudln't let him get away with it..

Its a guide to help people find God, written by people who have managed to do it themselves

When asked by a member of his audience "I walk with jesus christ every day of my life, why do you insist he doesn't exist?", Richard Dawkins said: "I understand your deep belief, but you are having a hallucination".

Egotist-ism is a manifestation of Ego, hence everyone does have a degree of egotist-ism. Unless of course you are one of those people with non smelly poo.

because to me that sounds like "the only reason you haven't found a god is because you're too self centred."

I think that is one of the central tenants of enlightment, is once you stop being self centred (ie: focusing on surviving right now) you open your mind up to its full potential, and this is a belief that has permeated our recorded history and has happened in cultures which have had zero contact with each other. I would add I am not sure if that then links with finding god, or its just our unconscious desire for there to be something more .......

learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

requires either religion, religious texts or faith.

Well no it doesn't actually, you don't need a teacher/guide/religion to find god however its much easier with one. All religions comment on exception people who can do this without help from teachers.

Same as everything really, if you want to get good at something its much easier with a teacher than it is figuring it out on your own.

Egotist-ism is a manifestation of Ego, hence everyone does have a degree of egotist-ism. Unless of course you are one of those people with non smelly poo

I know what you mean in layman terms and we talk about it but there is no physical stucture nor actual ego ..it is just a metaphor.
My poo is real It smells pretty much like your argument 😉

I am talking about integers and you know what I mean,

But isn't it interesting that what you thought a moment ago was immutable fact suddenly turns out not to be the case. It's almost as though people could have different points of view and both be right, isn't it.

I thought earlier you were in the atheist camp but this kind of obfuscation to try and score points has me somewhat worried..

I'm very much in the atheist camp. I think organised religion as a concept is holding back our development both as a culture and as a species, and I genuinely don't understand why otherwise sensible people insist on clinging on to these outdated superstitions.

However, I try not to be an arse about it. It makes for more interesting discussion that way.

And again....

[img] [/img]

Ooh, this is in danger of getting closed down before it makes the magic 20.

I think we aree now arguing over what form of 'Biblical exegesis' we take. There is the 'rational' version where the text are considered to be written entirely by people according to what they saw and the more traditional 'revealed exegesis' where the texts are meant to have been 'inspired' by God in some way. What form this inspiration takes is of course up for debate and a matter of faith

But isn't it interesting that what you thought a moment ago was immutable fact suddenly turns out not to be the case. It's almost as though people could have different points of view and both be right, isn't it.

No because you can easily prove 1+1=2 with intergers or 1+1 = nearly 3 with real numbers. Has anyone yet come up with a similarly excellent and demonstrateable proof of god?

However, I try not to be an arse about it. It makes for more interesting discussion that way.

Apart from of course calling me stupid, and an arse? Thats all fine then isn't it?

Apart from of course calling me... an arse?

I didn't call you (or anyone) anything of the sort. I was talking about myself. Are you so desperate to argue with me that you're now resorting to making things up?

You implied I was an arse. You see this is the dishonesty I was talking about. I will call you an arse and it's an insult, you will imply I'm an arse and it isn't. Otherwise the statement

However I try not to be an arse about it

The funny thing is Mr Kettle, is that now, as you are actually being an arse, you have done all of the things you berated me for both generally and specifically. 🙂

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Meaningless to you, maybe. But any mistaken implication derived is your failing, not mine.

you are actually being an arse

... in your opinion.

ha ha, that was lame, sorry I'm not insulted by you calling me an arse, I'm just pointing out the facts.

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Probably because it's the right thing to do, I expect they don't like it as they can't see any evidence for it being true.

but was under the impression that the concept of the Bible being allegorical is a relatively modern thing.

I don't think so. Given that Jesus used parables to illustrate points it is not unreasonable to assume that that was an accepted way of passing a message at that time. In fact even back with all the fuss over Galilleo it was clear that there was a huge discussion over the interpretion of the Bile in the light of 'modern' science so there really isn't anything new here

sorry I'm not insulted by you calling me an arse, I'm just pointing out the facts.

You're pointing out your interpretation of the facts, which I've already explained are erroneous. Yet you still cling to them. Why is that?

Anyway, this is getting tedious, so I'm oot. There's little point discussing things with you if you're determined to argue with people who essentially agree with you.

An allegory is something said in a different way whereas parables is what you keep in your underpants

Junkyard, your response smacks of the default 'prove it' argument that people use when they don't like what they are reading

Have you got anything other than ad hominem and false conclusions to explain your position better?
What I like is irrelevant [ I would like there to be a god who righted all wrongs , let me live for ever and punished wicked people but this wont make it happen or true]
As for attacking me for asking for proof is their a better alternative.
Again ego is a layman term it is a metaphor there is no ego like there is a liver and a heart. We both know you cannot prove an ego [ and no one can prove a negative]. You can talk away about it if you like but this wont make it real.
So assert away without evidence and attack me when I ask for evidence to support your view.

You're pointing out your interpretation of the facts, which I've already explained are erroneous. Yet you still cling to them. Why is that?

perhaps you would care to elaborate what

However I try not to be an arse about it

There's little point discussing things with you if you're determined to argue with people who essentially agree with you.

Mr Kettle, I am not determined to argue with you, I just think it's a little hypocritcal and somewhat trite to berate me for "being offensive" whilst doing the same thing yourself.

You appear to have missed a post. Here it is again.

Cougar - Member

Anyway, this is getting tedious, so I'm oot.

I've told you what I meant, I'm not doing it again. If you choose to deliberately misinterpret something in order to, as you say, point score, that's your lookout.

@ Toys mleh what are you trying to achieve here [ that is rhetorical resist the urge to reply]

You appear to have missed a post. Here it is again.

Thats funny, you just came back?

come on guys - you are letting the theists off the hook here

Oh em gee Toys and Cougar can we arrange some sort of Thunderdome to sort this out?