• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About cuchulain

  • Rank
    Stoic Atheist
  • Birthday 03/24/1978

Helpful Information

  • Title, Name/Nickname
  • Gender
  • Marital Status
  • Location
    citizen of the world

Friendly Details

  • Interests
    reading, friends, philosophical studies, science fiction, logic. Trying to understand others, and get them to understand me.
  • Pets / Animals
    a few
  • Grateful For
    Good friends and family
  • Your Motto
    Always try to be your best self
  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    stoic atheist

Other Details

  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

3,653 profile views
  1. Sufficiency of Scripture

    i am not attempting to push to pullpit. i am quoting amulet, an administrator, from the topic 'forum area movement and maintenance', post 3..."since descriptions for each forum have been updated, please be sure you are posting your topics in the correct area.". it was important enough of a statement that amulet reiterated this exact piece at the bottom of that post. maybe the case is that i see it as a truth that we should follow administration tips such as this, and you see it differently and are pushing your view on me. i will keep making what i view as polite recommendations as i see fit. call it pushy if it helps your point, but really it looks like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
  2. Gospel and Reincarnation

    Ahhh...the definition game rears its head again, lol. I think the only way to get anywhere in a debate is for the people debating, or discussing if you prefer, to determine in advance what the definitions are of what they are discussing mutually. If that cannot be done, then discussion is not really productive, is it? In the metaphysical sense, me is the personality, the soul, the character, the thought process behind it all that is unique to me. Physically, I guess I am dna in a specific combination with specific body parts of different measurements and various chemicals tossed into the mix. So with that definition, "Me" changes if I have a beer.
  3. Sufficiency of Scripture

    so then apply that to your responses to us...nevermind. waste of time.
  4. Sufficiency of Scripture

    It's just one of my failings that I work on. It isn't a need to be right, or get the last word in. I see something posted directed towards me, and I don't want people to think I agree with that sentiment. But either way, it's a failing. And I work on it. Sometimes I succeed and others I fail.
  5. Sufficiency of Scripture

    Sometimes the advice you gave about mieshek applies to a specific moderator on this forum, whom we are not allowed to put on our ignore list. It's a failing of mine that I continue to respond to this individual, who talks in circles with the best of preachers and often points out the errors of others' logic...and then decries those others for pointing out someone else's logical failings. Hypocrisy is annoying to me, and it's one of my triggers, so I often find myself compelled to respond. He used to be on my ignore list...then he just popped off one day and now the site won't let me put him back
  6. Sufficiency of Scripture

    This works both ways. You fail to include mieshek in your evaluation of how we are behaving, and he is equally a part of this. He pushes his way on us, with no regard that HE might be wrong...and WE might be right.
  7. Sufficiency of Scripture

    i was coming to that conclusion albeit much slower. i thank you for the timely wake up call. if push comes to shove i will use the email, though i hope that doesn't happen.
  8. Sufficiency of Scripture

    I can understand that, thank you. The problem here is this subject rightfully belongs in the pulpit, where response is not allowed. I believe the person who began this subject was preaching, and that should go there. BUT...when I recommended that to someone in the past, they threw fits telling me I was trying to silence them. This section is able to be replied to for a reason. Using logic, I would hazard that the reason is for discussion of beliefs in matters of philosophy and theory. If a person posts a topic here, there are several factors in play. First, they have an account here and agreed to terms of service. Those terms say(paraphrasing here) that a person shouldn't attack other people directly, and shouldn't run down their beliefs or ideas. I have crossed that line on occasion, but I at least attempt not to do so. Second, if they post here, they should understand the make up of the board is various. There are many people here from many different beliefs and ideas and philosophies. In other words, they aught to try to moderate what they say about those other beliefs, etc... Third, this particular area is a discussion area and able to be replied to. So, some of those other beliefs that disagree with the posters, they are going to see this topic and they MIGHT have input that seems less than flattering because it doesn't agree with what they are saying. I don't know why people think disagreement is attack, sometimes it's just polite discussion and attempts to sway the person to their way of thinking and any other number of things, but most people think if I disagree with their ideology I am attacking them. I asked this particular person to point out my attack...AND THEY FAIL TO DO SO. That's because it doesn't exist. So what we have is this. The person who posted this topic, mieshek(for some reason that name just doesn't stick in my mind and I have to look back, maybe it's just because they are newer here or maybe its strangely phrased or something, I apologize), is a preacher. He thinks he has found THE truth, the only truth...and all others are simply wrong. That's his right. He is free to speak however he wants, within those terms of service. I even stated early on that I don't think he should apologize for stating things that he believes to be true, so long as he isn't crossing that line and attacking someone else. But he does. He does the passive aggressive thing and says that he doesn't, or puts a disclaimer on his statements saying if we don't like what he says we shouldn't read it(now here's a conundrum for you, how do we know what he says UNLESS WE READ IT!!!) But I digress...this is all good reason for why he should post in the appropriate area, namely the Pulpit...and he knows about the pulpit. He has responded in other areas of the forum where I tried to point another member in that direction, and he saw that post. Yet he chooses to post here. That's his prerogative. It's also my prerogative to respond, whether he likes what I have to say or not. And again...I ask. Since there seems to be some indication that I am attacking miechek...please point out where!!!!!! If not...quit saying so.
  9. history and faith

    Personally, I have a hard time trusting just about anyone anymore. Just basic life and experience with other humans. I used to be exceptionally naïve in that I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt. I took teachers' words for it when they told me as a young child we were all special and unique and valuable. Then I took teachers words for it when I grew up a little bit, about middle school, when they insisted we were all the same and nobody was any different than anyone else. Then I had a good teacher in college who taught me how to think for myself Sometimes that is a slow process, but I get there eventually.
  10. history and faith

    On the side note. I think it boils down to people's experiences. I have encountered and dealt with many scientific and spiritual people over the years. I am speaking in generalizations, which I know is a bad thing, so bare that in mind please. Scientific people usually in my experience come off a lot calmer, a lot more assured. They look into matters and try to figure them out. There is a plethora of scientific data and information which has been used over the centuries reliably. Occasionally a scientist will get caught fudging his or her research, and usually when that happens they fall on their sword, so to speak, they admit they were wrong and are sorry about it. They take the consequences of their actions. But that doesn't happen so often in my experience(i may be wrong, I just haven't met ANY personally who have fudged their numbers to make something work). Spiritual people come off in a variety of ways, so it isn't as predictable. They can be calm and soothing, or they can be yellers. They can be any number of things just like anyone else really, but in dealing with matters of spirit, people tend to get a little more worked up. They have more invested I think in being right, as they align with religions and spiritual practices based on who they are, and so if a person can attack the information provided by their spirituality, they are in essence attacking that person as well. They might look into matters to try to figure them out, like the scientist, but in my experience they like to cherry pick their facts a LOT more, going with the studies that affirm what they already believe and heckling the studies that show otherwise. There is a history of spiritual people being wrong AND STILL TRYING TO ASSERT THAT THEY ARE RIGHT. Scientists typically will admit that they are wrong when it is shown, be it by their own study or someone else's. It's kind of a scientific community delight actually to prove the other guy wrong. A spiritual person getting donations will certainly fight to prove that they were not engaged in any illicit activities, even though it eventually comes out that they were, and they will not give back those donations. Scientists with their funding are a different matter altogether. In essence, it boils down to peoples experience with the two types of people. So most people will believe the scientist, and not the spiritual person, because that's been their experience.
  11. Sufficiency of Scripture

    This is where you assume we don't have the credentials to give you an educated answer, or in other words...we just aren't smart enough to discuss it with you. Again, apologies on the multiple posts, don't know how to multiquote, and I think too many posts is annoying at least in so far as others dismissing my ideas because I am "not educated enough" I will just leave it here.
  12. Sufficiency of Scripture

    This is where you say we believe in "Nothing" that is, we have no hopes, no dreams, no fairy tales...and our beliefs are looney toons. That's something I found insulting. Again, I don't know how to multiquote, so I apologize for the splitting of all these responses.
  13. Sufficiency of Scripture

    This is ONE example...though not the one I was thinking of, where you were saying other people do not see(or are blind) and that YOUR eyes are open, presupposing of course that others' with different beliefs or ideas are closed, or blind.
  14. Sufficiency of Scripture

    This is where you say it is ignorance...see right there? That was you second or third post in this topic, and it wasn't that hard to find. I am not technologically inclined enough to multiquote where you also said where we are blind or cannot see or whatever, so I may...MAY...feel up to looking that up as well and highlighting that lie as well.
  15. Sufficiency of Scripture

    Better proof that science are using a computer created through scientific principles utilizing scientific principles in order to transmit information.