cuchulain

I wasn't being sarcastic. I think all mythology can be learned from, whether christian, hindu, muslim, or satanic. But take it literally? Not for me. At least, not without real proof. I seem to recall having this conversation before with you...and am still wondering if those angels ever told you the verse i wrote down? Guessing...not.

That's certainly true. I've seen this ploy before as well as myriad others. It's just i usually blind myself to it expecting the best, that is an honest but well intentioned mistake leading to new knowledge and understanding. Or naivety on my part. It's the factory default setting on my model. Looking now, I can easily see the attack that was hidden(how we're tearing his sanctuary apart...nevermind that it takes multiples greater than one to fight) and the attack coming that you pointed out(commy atheists). Next it'll be our judgementalism(which is displayed by calling atheists commies, but we overlook that of course). I really hoped with a different voice there could be honest discourse...alas my naivety has dashed my hopes again, lol.

As i said, mine is the oddity. It doesnt bother me in the least to lose or gain position, prestige or title. They arent me. If i were proclaimed the preeminent philosopher in the world or the joke of the forum, still i would be the same person. But i am certainly no saint, buddha or anything like that. Far too many flaws. This is just the rare area i've had some tranquility with. .

I am, and shall be again, naive. Thanks for pointing that out.

I appreciate a positive spin on mythology. Its good to be able to learn from such, but i prefer the example of the devil in showing self thought, and rebellion against the oppressive regime.

It is a small thing, by stoic philosophy. The rock is thrown into the air. It gains nothing from rising and loses nothing in its fall, because its still a rock no matter where its at in the arc. I fully concede mine as the odd perspective. And fully concede it is a courageous and noble thing to stand on principles in the face of adversity. Most admirable, as well as regretted that there be negative consequences to the right thing.

Theistic realism is the idea that god is real, acts in the universe, is knowable through the senses and reason. Dialectical materialism is the marxist theory that maintains the material basis of reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind. Yep, i had to look those up. I haven't seen evidence of a war between those thoughts...nor do i concede they relate to the alleged war on christmas, nor that either or both provide proof that the war on christmas wasn't manufactured. God is knowable vs matter over mind doesn't appear relevant to a fake war on christmas to me. Can you prove it is or otherwise enlighten me in this regard? Also, prove that its 'the primary engine of discontent'...since i dont view atheism as a matter over mind philosophy but rather as a lack of belief in deity alone. I can see that as being conflated with dialectical materialism since you put the two on opposite ends, yet that doesn't necessarily demand atheism is actually the same. Merely that we dont believe or subscribe to theistic realism does not automatically place us as dialectical materialists, they are not functions of each other.

Less than his lack of course would have I think.

Mmmm....morticia.

Agreed. I never understood the anger towards someone saying 'happy holidays' OR 'merry christmas', counting the intent as positive. Of course, there are ways to twist positive sentiments.

It reminds me of a video on youtube by a christian. They had a laugh because before an interview with either hitchens or dawkin, i dont remember which specific atheist, the atheist kept saying, 'i cant find my glasses...god, where are they'. Of course, the christian tried to use this as proof that the atheist really believed in god...

It's almost a morbid curiosity for me, as to how long it will take for this place to finish rotting. But then, I often liken myself to Gomez Addams...

I am capable of impartiality...but not full time. When the mods work(mostly), they do a good job. There was the one who consistently claimed to receive messages from members who abandoned ship just because of me, and while possible, the claim always came during debate...and i saw it used against others as well. Definitely some mods are not unbiased...when they're here.

I think in a minimally moderated forum, every participant in anything petty or negative, such as myself, holds responsibility for how the forum exists, and that those who remain silent but watch should voice complaint that its turning bad or ugly. We all control the forum when mods appear to be elsewhere, and are all capable of setting a better tone. Its difficult personally to witness something and not entangle myself in it. That's probably obvious, unfortunately. But recognizing that we each have flaws in communication and accepting that they are valid and negatively impact the forum as a whole is a good step. Myself, i try to insert myself in a broad range of topics and sometimes my personal feelings about a subject bleed through. I use logic as a weapon at times instead of trying to teach, and of course it fails to be effective. Or i see someone deliberately baiting and engage instead of reporting. I can do better and fully believe others can as well. I dont need to police others comments with my own. I can report baiting when observed instead of responding likewise and i can turn the conversation or at least make the attempt. Perhaps if the mods get enough emails reporting it, they will take a positive interest in participating more fully.

I've been here through this before. A couple of times, actually...although the first was under a different user name as I chose at the time to abandon ship as well and when I came back I forgot my password, and the email I used for it was defunct, so I created an entirely new name. Usually one side or the other(and it's always the atheists vs Christians, not theists, pagans, or anything else...Christians) pounds the other mercilessly with points that nitpick. Or they aggravate, deliberately baiting the other side. Sometimes it's both sides. Sometimes it starts with one person, and when they realize what they are doing and try to stop several other people step up in their place. Ultimately, the baiting works. The side being baited responds in a manner that is in violation of terms of service. They get reported, and the moderators fail to look at the cause of the outburst and ban that particular member. It works through several members, till there are only a few left in that particular group who go silent. Since there is no longer two sides debating, one side makes a few posts in victory after having vanquished their nemesis...only to realize there is no longer anyone left debating and it's not fun anymore. Then they go silent because they go elsewhere looking for what they want. Or maybe the moderators determine its actually time to do something(believe it or not the mods used to be very active on this board, it has dwindled to non existent lately). Usually what they do, however, is simply rework the site. They think an overhaul and change of appearance, maybe changing the sections around and rewording what they are supposed to be about, will work. And it does for about two weeks, or maybe two months. Then the debates slowly start up again. A brazen wanderer as we have observed on numerous occasions will say something so blatantly dim, or unprovable, or just plain whacky, that someone will post that they don't believe it. They will be nice at first, but you know how the wanderers work. They don't respond with niceties no matter how nice you are, if you disagree with them. At this point moderators will still be active, and the wanderer might get themselves banned. But it's usually enough to break the ice and start small conversations where people are overly politically correct with each other for a while. Then the debates get to a point where one side or the other realizes that they aren't gaining any ground whatsoever and that the other side is being obviously obtuse and obstinate. It doesn't really matter which is which, this is the point where small little bickering gets in the way. Or maybe you have a member like Dan who likes to hide insults and pretend stupidity. It gets to the point where they start deliberately doing so(just like Dan is doing right now actually), and the other side(in this case us atheists) start getting tired of veiled insults(or in songsters case open outright insults) that go unmonitored by the moderators who have wandered off, and starts fighting back. After a while of fighting back, things have become heated between both sides. Doesn't matter who started it, at that point it's virtually untraceable because so many petty points have been made over such a length of time. One side takes advantage of the ill will. They start "acting" like they have no grievance, and they are just honestly debating. They continually use points that have negative connotations attached to them. Maybe they reference things that have been said before, or vaguely insult, or use their special book to do the insulting for them. But they have decided they aren't going to cross the line any more so that when we do, they can mash that report post button en masse and the moderators just might take notice and ban that particular member....then they target the next, and the next. It's really baiting, but the mods aren't going to bother themselves with investigating that when there is someone blatantly violating terms of service served up on their platter that they can handle immediately...and then of course rework the website so it looks nicer and spells out differently what each section says. It's a cycle, or at least it has been with this particular forum. Perhaps one day the site owner might get tired of seeing the same cycle, if they pay attention to the site. I do not know if they do or not, it may be they simply host it and expect good behavior which doesn't materialize unbeknownst to them. But at some point, the people in charge will get tired of it altogether I believe, and do away with the site entirely. It won't be a sad passing, excepting some good friends. For the most part, people on here bicker and whine about each other(myself included at points). They don't exchange intellectual ideas, or even spiritual ideas in any relevant manner. They(and I) preach to the choir. We each of us have our audiences, but they primarily consist of people who already agree with our sides of the issues at hand. Dan spews his insults, and denies it entirely. Songster flat out name calls. I beat the dead horse till people want to slam their heads into the wall. It's possible that at some point a person in a cycle can realize what they are doing and alter course(you'll notice I post much less now, in an attempt to give that horse a break ). But ultimately, there are too many small minded people who won't realize for whatever reason that they are keeping the feud alive...and eventually the mods will figure out that things won't change, and this is and will always become a negative place.

You see...reject was the word of emphasis. But you would change that to 'no evidence vs absence of evidence'...you dont even see your answering the point that you use straw men deceptively, with another straw man. You are blind or deliberately playing dumb.

I understand the sentiment. I have considered the departure myself. Of course, the pagans are correct in their assertion that life begins, ages, then dies, and is reborn....at least so far as the life cycle of the average forum. Life here, or conversation, begins with a few brave souls. Then it ages...or gets old at least. Then it dies off, just as you described. Then it begins again later.

Sometimes I do. But this time, no. Some people wonder why I respond. Some tell me repeatedly I am beating the dead horse...I don't reference you, Johnathan. You have been supportive. Some people, though, don't understand the impetus that drives me to respond in seemingly useless debate. So I will take this opportunity to elucidate. There are people in this world who's passion leads them to cook. Leads them to become great chefs. There are those who work with their hands and create art, who manufacture stories with ease that entertain and enlighten others. There are those who teach and further knowledge to the new generations that come. My oldest son is one who has passion for computers and their workings. For me, I have a passion for philosophy. The joke goes, "what do you do with a philosophy degree? Think deep thoughts about being unemployed." This is very apt for me. I like to see the inner workings, understand the why's and how's. But that's science. I love to see how those why's and how's are translated and applied by others. I love to see the depth of thought, or lack thereof, from others' arguments. I like to examine the logic behind, to understand the deeper workings of the logic involved within the debates. I like seeing sound arguments made, and it doesn't matter which side they are made for, whether I agree or disagree. I like the sound argument. It's just that I so rarely encounter a sound argument coming from the faithful.

Straw Man Again!!! See, the atheist argument is that there is no evidence, so we don't believe. YOU CHANGED IT to "the absence of evidence causes them to reject..." I think you have no understanding of language, or you are deliberately misleading. Reject is an active word. It makes a claim. We don't' believe, much like you don't believe in Zeus. But you know this. You deliberately derail arguments in this manner so as to avoid the subjects you cannot answer. It would be better to simply admit a lack of knowledge.

And dan calls us fools using scripture, again. I guess hiding behind his mythology lets him get away with violating rules of conduct. Gee, wonder why atheists dislike dans methods...and deceptions.

I wonder if the founders of these religions were brain damaged and that shaped the beliefs of millions? Never know since most were anonymous.

Mythology...unless you can prove it.

The first quote is you claiming it can be proven, literally what you said. The second, that you cant prove it. This is a simple demonsration of your deliberately deceptive tactics in debate.

The fact, FACT, of its debatability...is proof that it IS confusing. Its confusing enough, that for centuries a special priest class was required for its interpretation...neverminding that they had as little insight as the next dan, er guy. They used psychology. They said it with conviction and 'authority' which people typically accept. It spread because it gave answers(though unproven) and claimed authority which became real by dint of shear numbers and the ability to enforce their mythology. When its a burning offense to believe otherwise, you should take stock on WHY the truth which is 'readily apparent' needs a death threat to be maintained.

Which means he knows but chooses to antagonise...