Page 3 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

03 Jun 2012, 8:20 am

Referring to an adult as "kid" is condescending and patronizing.
Name-calling is itself juvenille behavior.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

03 Jun 2012, 8:27 am

YippySkippy wrote:
Referring to an adult as "kid" is condescending and patronizing.
Yeah, and you are kind of spamming a thread with PM material, here.

Quote:
Name-calling is itself juvenille behavior.
I know you are, but what am I?



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

03 Jun 2012, 8:40 am

What's the PM stand for?



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

03 Jun 2012, 8:53 am

YippySkippy wrote:
What's the PM stand for?
Private messages. When you want to tell another user, "dude, you are being a dick," it is a lot more socially appropriate to send a private message. So everyone who doesn't know about this feature gets the review, I'll cover it here rather than PMing this to you...otherwise, this material would be for PMs itself.

What you would do would be to click on my name. It ought to take you to a table that shows information about me. Underneath "Contact WilliamWDelaney," you will see a list including, "e-mail address," "private messages," etc.. Next to "private messages" is a button labeled "pm." Click on it. When you get to the page that the button takes you to, type in the large box, "William, you are being a dick and making a fool of yourself, and this is causing me vicarious embarrassment." Send. The probable response will be "Well, up your mama's ass," but it keeps other people from having to see personal bickering, between two people, on a page where they expected to see interesting abstract discussion. When you get your response, which would probably be more civil in my case than threatened (but not in the case of a true dyed-in-the-wool prick), you will see the link in the upper-right part of the screen labeled "Inbox" change to a message telling you that you have a private message waiting for you.

I hope this helps.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

03 Jun 2012, 10:35 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
I think it has much to do with the fact atheists in general are simply more knowledgeable about the history of the religions. Followers are not really interested in the history that much - it's often uncomfortable for them and they have little interest in their religion as a social phenomenon, it tends to ruin their suspension of disbelief and take away from the "magic" (or whatever you want to call it) of the experience, and that is what they are chiefly interested in.

Most Christians believe, for instance, that they go to heaven when they die. This actually isn't Christianity - it was a major ideological battle between Christians and traditional Greco-Roman religious beliefs. The Greco-Roman religions believed that the soul passes on to the next world upon death in an immaterial form, not unlike the popular belief among Christians today. But the Christian position was, and still is in official doctrine, that your soul goes dormant when you die, until the Second Coming. It is never separate from the body, which is why burial (rather than cremation) was so important in Christianity for so long. After the Second Coming, all the dead are bodily resurrected and the final judgement takes place, with some being damned and the others granted immortality and a sort of citizenship in the Kingdom of God, which is established on Earth (with a capital at New Jerusalem).

Very, very few Christians are aware of any of this, except clergy. Ministers and priests know all about it, but they're mum on the subject to their flocks and try not to draw too much attention to it.


You are very deluded and foolish to think thath when this is very very WRONG! an untrue.
Look, kid, St. Augustine was one of the fathers of the idea of an "immortal soul," and he was heavily influenced in his thinking by Hellenistic thought. It really constituted a revival of Platonism, only it happened within the Church rather than in secular society.


People have had thoughts about the immortal soul befor St. Augustine.
In Platonistic and Hellenistic thought, yes! They sure did! However, it was St. Augustine who introduced it into mainstream Christian thought, and it was highly controversial at the time.

Many of past religions befor Christanity became the largest religion in the world their where other faiths with similar views.

Quote:
And I am no kid the name is Joker I am 23 not to many kids are 23 just sayin :wink:
In my opinion, anyone under 30 is a kid and too young to be having kids.


That would be wrong I am a young adult. My brother who is 24 has a daughter and a great father so your opinion is a weak one at best.
I was making a statement, dude. If you had told me you were 53, I would have said you shouldn't be having children until you are retired. I just thought it was silly of you to bristle like that over being called a kid, when it's not really that much of an insult in the first place. I have called 75 year old men "kid" for the same reason I called you "kid." You were reacting emotionally to factual content, and I found that to be naive.

If you have a problem with what others are claiming to be factual content, you ought to say, mildly, "I would be interested in seeing the sources of that information." If you are dealing with an actual intellectual, you will either be hit with a credible source or receive an apology.


Your opinon means nothing to me.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

04 Jun 2012, 7:11 am

Nah, I wouldn't have wanted to make my post a private message.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

04 Jun 2012, 7:26 am

YippySkippy wrote:
Nah, I wouldn't have wanted to make my post a private message.
Okay, so you were intent on being rude. Gotcha.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

04 Jun 2012, 7:29 am

Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
I think it has much to do with the fact atheists in general are simply more knowledgeable about the history of the religions. Followers are not really interested in the history that much - it's often uncomfortable for them and they have little interest in their religion as a social phenomenon, it tends to ruin their suspension of disbelief and take away from the "magic" (or whatever you want to call it) of the experience, and that is what they are chiefly interested in.

Most Christians believe, for instance, that they go to heaven when they die. This actually isn't Christianity - it was a major ideological battle between Christians and traditional Greco-Roman religious beliefs. The Greco-Roman religions believed that the soul passes on to the next world upon death in an immaterial form, not unlike the popular belief among Christians today. But the Christian position was, and still is in official doctrine, that your soul goes dormant when you die, until the Second Coming. It is never separate from the body, which is why burial (rather than cremation) was so important in Christianity for so long. After the Second Coming, all the dead are bodily resurrected and the final judgement takes place, with some being damned and the others granted immortality and a sort of citizenship in the Kingdom of God, which is established on Earth (with a capital at New Jerusalem).

Very, very few Christians are aware of any of this, except clergy. Ministers and priests know all about it, but they're mum on the subject to their flocks and try not to draw too much attention to it.


You are very deluded and foolish to think thath when this is very very WRONG! an untrue.
Look, kid, St. Augustine was one of the fathers of the idea of an "immortal soul," and he was heavily influenced in his thinking by Hellenistic thought. It really constituted a revival of Platonism, only it happened within the Church rather than in secular society.


People have had thoughts about the immortal soul befor St. Augustine.
In Platonistic and Hellenistic thought, yes! They sure did! However, it was St. Augustine who introduced it into mainstream Christian thought, and it was highly controversial at the time.

Many of past religions befor Christanity became the largest religion in the world their where other faiths with similar views.

Quote:
And I am no kid the name is Joker I am 23 not to many kids are 23 just sayin :wink:
In my opinion, anyone under 30 is a kid and too young to be having kids.


That would be wrong I am a young adult. My brother who is 24 has a daughter and a great father so your opinion is a weak one at best.
I was making a statement, dude. If you had told me you were 53, I would have said you shouldn't be having children until you are retired. I just thought it was silly of you to bristle like that over being called a kid, when it's not really that much of an insult in the first place. I have called 75 year old men "kid" for the same reason I called you "kid." You were reacting emotionally to factual content, and I found that to be naive.

If you have a problem with what others are claiming to be factual content, you ought to say, mildly, "I would be interested in seeing the sources of that information." If you are dealing with an actual intellectual, you will either be hit with a credible source or receive an apology.


Your opinon means nothing to me.
Ooooooookay. So I'm going to stop wasting my time with you and get back to the topic, then.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

04 Jun 2012, 7:43 am

slave wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/t/survey-americans-dont-know-much-about-religion/

"Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15."


It is interesting that atheists tend to be so much more knowledgeable on religious subject matter than most religious groups. If you are a religious person, yourself, you really ought to find this appalling because your fellow believers have been getting lax.

However, it would be interesting to explore just why atheists end up being so much more knowledgeable here. For my part, the reason that I take time to learn about religion is that, to me, it's really kind of appalling to cast judgement, for better or for worse, on any belief system if you haven't bothered to learn anything about it first. In fact, I tend to think that the reason most people remain religious is that they haven't really bothered to explore the subject, but they just go along with whatever appears to be the most socially acceptable way to think.

I'm not sure, though. It just doesn't make sense that someone would profess a religious faith yet never learn a thing about it. To me, it's kind of inane.



Atheism is known to be positively correlated with high IQ. High IQ individuals generally have more knowledge than normals and sub-normals about most topics including religion.
Well, I have some ideas of my own on that.

I think that Christianity loses something by promoting this idea that people are obligated to profess a belief in God. In fact, I think they lose a lot. What I think really happens here is that, if a person really doesn't want to think about religion, that person is just going to default to social expectation. Therefore, the fact that atheists are really breaking the mold is sort of evidence that they put more thought than others into their beliefs.

And I really think this explains why a lot of Catholics are ignorant about their own religion. Here is how Catholicism works: you are baptized as an infant, before your mind is capable of comprehending it. From there, you are forced to go to church by your parents, and you are pressed into going through the motions of faith. After your "confirmation," you aren't really required to attend church if you don't want to, and you are still a good Catholic if you never darken the doorway of a church again.

Atheists, though, don't usually try to teach their children to be atheists. They are a lot more likely to just want their children to be good citizens. If they have never had any direct exposure to religion, they would probably see their children getting involved in a religious group as a curiosity, and I would honestly be surprised to hear of an atheist parent telling his or her child, "don't mingle with those Christians. They are bad news."

Essentially, I think that the fact that atheists end up knowing more about religion is that you are simply not as likely to become an atheist if you don't have some kind of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and that means having enough curiosity to take your own initiative, without anyone pushing you to do so, to study the Bible and find out whether or not it says anything that you would want to be a part of your belief system.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

04 Jun 2012, 7:45 am

Quote:
Okay, so you were intent on being rude. Gotcha.


By your own standards, that should have been a PM. :lol:



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

04 Jun 2012, 12:16 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
slave wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/t/survey-americans-dont-know-much-about-religion/

"Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15."


It is interesting that atheists tend to be so much more knowledgeable on religious subject matter than most religious groups. If you are a religious person, yourself, you really ought to find this appalling because your fellow believers have been getting lax.

However, it would be interesting to explore just why atheists end up being so much more knowledgeable here. For my part, the reason that I take time to learn about religion is that, to me, it's really kind of appalling to cast judgement, for better or for worse, on any belief system if you haven't bothered to learn anything about it first. In fact, I tend to think that the reason most people remain religious is that they haven't really bothered to explore the subject, but they just go along with whatever appears to be the most socially acceptable way to think.

I'm not sure, though. It just doesn't make sense that someone would profess a religious faith yet never learn a thing about it. To me, it's kind of inane.



Atheism is known to be positively correlated with high IQ. High IQ individuals generally have more knowledge than normals and sub-normals about most topics including religion.
Well, I have some ideas of my own on that.

I think that Christianity loses something by promoting this idea that people are obligated to profess a belief in God. In fact, I think they lose a lot. What I think really happens here is that, if a person really doesn't want to think about religion, that person is just going to default to social expectation. Therefore, the fact that atheists are really breaking the mold is sort of evidence that they put more thought than others into their beliefs.

And I really think this explains why a lot of Catholics are ignorant about their own religion. Here is how Catholicism works: you are baptized as an infant, before your mind is capable of comprehending it. From there, you are forced to go to church by your parents, and you are pressed into going through the motions of faith. After your "confirmation," you aren't really required to attend church if you don't want to, and you are still a good Catholic if you never darken the doorway of a church again.

Atheists, though, don't usually try to teach their children to be atheists. They are a lot more likely to just want their children to be good citizens. If they have never had any direct exposure to religion, they would probably see their children getting involved in a religious group as a curiosity, and I would honestly be surprised to hear of an atheist parent telling his or her child, "don't mingle with those Christians. They are bad news."

Essentially, I think that the fact that atheists end up knowing more about religion is that you are simply not as likely to become an atheist if you don't have some kind of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and that means having enough curiosity to take your own initiative, without anyone pushing you to do so, to study the Bible and find out whether or not it says anything that you would want to be a part of your belief system.


Not true at all when it comes to proestants. We believe that it's a choice to follow God or believe in him. But the calvlaists believe in predestination which is hogwash.



MONKEY
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,896
Location: Stoke, England (sometimes :P)

04 Jun 2012, 1:58 pm

I suppose some might have done a lot of research into religion before coming to a final conclusion or used to be religious themselves but are now looking at it through a different, more objective angle.


_________________
What film do atheists watch on Christmas?
Coincidence on 34th street.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

04 Jun 2012, 2:04 pm

MONKEY wrote:
I suppose some might have done a lot of research into religion before coming to a final conclusion or used to be religious themselves but are now looking at it through a different, more objective angle.


Yes this is true I will admit their is not a whole lot of reasoning with very religious people. Their comes a time where you have to think for yourself. About things and not use religion to guide your actions all the time.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

04 Jun 2012, 4:55 pm

Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
slave wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/t/survey-americans-dont-know-much-about-religion/

"Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15."


It is interesting that atheists tend to be so much more knowledgeable on religious subject matter than most religious groups. If you are a religious person, yourself, you really ought to find this appalling because your fellow believers have been getting lax.

However, it would be interesting to explore just why atheists end up being so much more knowledgeable here. For my part, the reason that I take time to learn about religion is that, to me, it's really kind of appalling to cast judgement, for better or for worse, on any belief system if you haven't bothered to learn anything about it first. In fact, I tend to think that the reason most people remain religious is that they haven't really bothered to explore the subject, but they just go along with whatever appears to be the most socially acceptable way to think.

I'm not sure, though. It just doesn't make sense that someone would profess a religious faith yet never learn a thing about it. To me, it's kind of inane.



Atheism is known to be positively correlated with high IQ. High IQ individuals generally have more knowledge than normals and sub-normals about most topics including religion.
Well, I have some ideas of my own on that.

I think that Christianity loses something by promoting this idea that people are obligated to profess a belief in God. In fact, I think they lose a lot. What I think really happens here is that, if a person really doesn't want to think about religion, that person is just going to default to social expectation. Therefore, the fact that atheists are really breaking the mold is sort of evidence that they put more thought than others into their beliefs.

And I really think this explains why a lot of Catholics are ignorant about their own religion. Here is how Catholicism works: you are baptized as an infant, before your mind is capable of comprehending it. From there, you are forced to go to church by your parents, and you are pressed into going through the motions of faith. After your "confirmation," you aren't really required to attend church if you don't want to, and you are still a good Catholic if you never darken the doorway of a church again.

Atheists, though, don't usually try to teach their children to be atheists. They are a lot more likely to just want their children to be good citizens. If they have never had any direct exposure to religion, they would probably see their children getting involved in a religious group as a curiosity, and I would honestly be surprised to hear of an atheist parent telling his or her child, "don't mingle with those Christians. They are bad news."

Essentially, I think that the fact that atheists end up knowing more about religion is that you are simply not as likely to become an atheist if you don't have some kind of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and that means having enough curiosity to take your own initiative, without anyone pushing you to do so, to study the Bible and find out whether or not it says anything that you would want to be a part of your belief system.


Not true at all when it comes to proestants. We believe that it's a choice to follow God or believe in him.
That is actually a specific belief of the Baptists and certain related sects. Methodists actually still practice infant baptism. Also, the Church of England is technically protestant, even though they are arguably a branch of the Roman Catholic church that no longer recognizes the papacy and has some inconsequential differing opinions with the RCC on certain bits of theology and the validity of a handful of rituals.

Then again, my opinion doesn't matter to you, so the conversation is all null and void anyway.

Quote:
But the calvlaists believe in predestination which is hogwash.
I wonder how you feel when someone talks this way about your beliefs.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

07 Jun 2012, 9:26 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Joker wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
slave wrote:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39397251/ns/us_news-life/t/survey-americans-dont-know-much-about-religion/

"Respondents to the survey were asked 32 questions with a range of difficulty, including whether they could name the Islamic holy book and the first book of the Bible, or say what century the Mormon religion was founded. On average, participants in the survey answered correctly overall for half of the survey questions.
Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15."


It is interesting that atheists tend to be so much more knowledgeable on religious subject matter than most religious groups. If you are a religious person, yourself, you really ought to find this appalling because your fellow believers have been getting lax.

However, it would be interesting to explore just why atheists end up being so much more knowledgeable here. For my part, the reason that I take time to learn about religion is that, to me, it's really kind of appalling to cast judgement, for better or for worse, on any belief system if you haven't bothered to learn anything about it first. In fact, I tend to think that the reason most people remain religious is that they haven't really bothered to explore the subject, but they just go along with whatever appears to be the most socially acceptable way to think.

I'm not sure, though. It just doesn't make sense that someone would profess a religious faith yet never learn a thing about it. To me, it's kind of inane.



Atheism is known to be positively correlated with high IQ. High IQ individuals generally have more knowledge than normals and sub-normals about most topics including religion.
Well, I have some ideas of my own on that.

I think that Christianity loses something by promoting this idea that people are obligated to profess a belief in God. In fact, I think they lose a lot. What I think really happens here is that, if a person really doesn't want to think about religion, that person is just going to default to social expectation. Therefore, the fact that atheists are really breaking the mold is sort of evidence that they put more thought than others into their beliefs.

And I really think this explains why a lot of Catholics are ignorant about their own religion. Here is how Catholicism works: you are baptized as an infant, before your mind is capable of comprehending it. From there, you are forced to go to church by your parents, and you are pressed into going through the motions of faith. After your "confirmation," you aren't really required to attend church if you don't want to, and you are still a good Catholic if you never darken the doorway of a church again.

Atheists, though, don't usually try to teach their children to be atheists. They are a lot more likely to just want their children to be good citizens. If they have never had any direct exposure to religion, they would probably see their children getting involved in a religious group as a curiosity, and I would honestly be surprised to hear of an atheist parent telling his or her child, "don't mingle with those Christians. They are bad news."

Essentially, I think that the fact that atheists end up knowing more about religion is that you are simply not as likely to become an atheist if you don't have some kind of intellectual curiosity about the subject, and that means having enough curiosity to take your own initiative, without anyone pushing you to do so, to study the Bible and find out whether or not it says anything that you would want to be a part of your belief system.


Not true at all when it comes to proestants. We believe that it's a choice to follow God or believe in him.
That is actually a specific belief of the Baptists and certain related sects. Methodists actually still practice infant baptism. Also, the Church of England is technically protestant, even though they are arguably a branch of the Roman Catholic church that no longer recognizes the papacy and has some inconsequential differing opinions with the RCC on certain bits of theology and the validity of a handful of rituals.

Then again, my opinion doesn't matter to you, so the conversation is all null and void anyway.

Quote:
But the calvlaists believe in predestination which is hogwash.
I wonder how you feel when someone talks this way about your beliefs.


The same way you would feel if I talked about your beliefs. I am sure you would not care as do I.



mikecartwright
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 398

07 Jun 2012, 9:32 pm

Atheists study religion more then Theists.