BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 08:54 PM

As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site.

They haven't got any, and never will have. That's the whole point of faith. You have to turn your back on all that in order to espouse notions that fly in the face of all logic and reason. There is so much evidence that God does not exist that to espouse faith is to indulge in the ultimate irrationality. I've known people of faith who cheerfully acknowledge this, and they are fine and entertaining people to talk with. Unfortunately, many people of faith would sooner just shut their eyes and ears and tell us to stop being rude to them, even though they're rude enough not to listen to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:53 PM

>>Well, knowing many southerners, I know that they would consider King "rude" as well as being threatened by him.<<

He's been dead for more than forty years. No one you know feels threatened by Dr. King.
No one you know has said that he was rude or else you would have said so by now.

>>As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site. <<

Well that is true enough, nothing verifiable and testable when it comes to religious faith anyway. But you are the one claiming to have logic and science on YOUR side. You are admitting that you are no better than I am.

On the other hand I have been able to poke holes in your pretend logic and quote back your hero de Waal disagreeing with what you have said about atheism, what you have said about Dawkins and even what you have said about de Waal himself.

Fact is you are not scientific, not logical, not even truthful.

You can weasel around talking about logic and brickbats and whatnot all you like. But the truth will come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:16 PM

Well, knowing many southerners, I know that they would consider King "rude" as well as being threatened by him.

As far as verifiable and testable information, none is coming from the religionists on this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:22 PM

""God exists", for example."

Well yes. I freely admit that would be a silly thing to try to argue logically. But the point being argued by Stringsinger is " Dr. King was castigated as rude." If that were so, it would have been much easier thing to prove than the existence of God. But there is no evidence of this castigation.

But is "reasoning" is along these lines

I am being called rude.
I am telling the "truth" to someone too stupid to listen.
Dr King was telling the truth to someone too dumb to hear it.
Someone must have "castigated" Dr. King for being rude.

The above is NOT logical.

I would not bother to pursue this question of logic if stringsinger had not castigated me for not being logical.

But he did. So now I am being logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:37 PM

the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

"God exists", for example. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:57 AM

>>Having just finished Bob Dylan's Chronicles first book I can say that I don't think Bob Dylan really trusted himself.<<

the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:54 AM

"King was castigated and the rationale by many white southerners was that he was "rude" for upsetting the status quo. Rudeness is often in the eye of the beholder. "

Oh he was castigated for upsetting the status quo. There is no doubt about that. He was called a lot of things. But you won't find an example of anyone calling him "rude."

Obviously you are not letting this get in the way of you repeating that claim. Yet you claim that I am not "logical.

I am saying that Dawkins is rude because he is mocking and condescending and he uses insults that are not applicable and unsupported by science, such as "child abuse" and delusional.

You can still watch his TED talk were he does all of the above and admits to militant atheism. All you have to do is google it and hit "play."

You can also watch many recorded speeches of Dr. King. If there is one example of a rude statement or unfounded insult you can point it out. You can comb through the hundreds of thousands of statements about Dr. King, all you have to do is find one person saying that one of his comments is rude to prove their case.   


Instead you talk about hypothetical southerners and claim to read their minds saying that you know what their unspoken rationale was.

One of the features of zealotry, religious or not, is the failure to look at data that challenges your beliefs, another is the propensity to make untestable and unverifiable statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:45 AM

Having just finished Bob Dylan's Chronicles first book I can say that I don't think Bob Dylan really trusted himself. He was as confused as any human being about what he wanted.

As for interpreting his songs, here's what he had to say on that subject:
"I was sick of the way my lyrics had been extrapolated, their meanings subverted to polemics and that I had been anointed as the Big Bubba of Rebellion."

Who here is qualified to say what Dylan's amorphous lyrics really mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:36 AM

King was castigated and the rationale by many white southerners was that he was "rude" for upsetting the status quo. Rudeness is often in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:45 PM

Oh yeah... let me put my foot in it again. Bluegrass, baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM

More to the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:36 AM

No. You are having to become a Sheffield Wednesday supporter because it is the one true path and heretics will be boiled in a vat of gorilla sweat.

You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 10:10 AM

I'm going to have to become a Wednesday supporter to find out what this is all about...

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 01:19 AM

And I refer you to the goal at Wembley from a free kick in the bigger than World Cup final couple of years later. (Ok Sheffield Wednesday v Sheffield United FA Cup semi final) The nearest the city ever got to religion....

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 09:29 PM

From: frogprince - PM
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM

I'll try that again:

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

______________________

I am resisting the temptation to be as condescending to you as you were to me.

CASTIGATE
: to subject to severe punishment, reproof, or criticism

I assumed that stringsinger meant criticism, not punish. If you thought the only definition was punish then I guest your question makes sense.

If not,

Are you telling me that you know of one single case where anyone, anywhere, anytime CASTIGATED. Dr. Martin Luther King for being rude?

Stringsingers point is that I am being stupid for calling him and Mr Dawkins rude. Because I don't like them calling people "delusional" and telling them how to raise their kids.

He is saying that Dr King was severely criticized for being rude by racists. He is saying that I am now better than a hypothetical racist southerner. Stringsinger has a very easy way to prove his case. All he has to do is produce one instance where a politician, a spectator, a policeman, a KKK grand dragon said that Dr. King was rude. Dr. King was a great speaker and a thoughtful speaker, walking on eggshells struggling every day to keep the focus of his movement on love an non-violence. Do you really think his words could be described as rude? Only a fool would call him rude.

Stingsinger in his own little passive aggressive way is saying I am like those racist fools. I don't think those racist fools exist. I am sorry but I do not think it is reasonable to say that people though of Dr. King as racist.

But then I think it is King of loopy to invoke Dr. King in an argument where you are saying it is not rude to say that people like Dr. King are delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 08:50 PM

Castigated means having yer bollocks chopped off. Thought everyone knew that. Sheesh.

Now Musket. You should know better than to offer me an open goal (a term I use advisedly, in the event...) by mentioning Chris Waddle. I will refrain from embarrassing you further by not mentioning the egregious penalty miss of his that precipitated us out of the 1990 World Cup. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM

I'll try that again:

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:42 PM

Jack, do you in fact know what "castigated" means? If a guy named Joe tells you that a guy named tells you that someone named Melvin has castigated you, do you think that what Joe said is a lie and slur directed against you?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:51 PM

"I stated that he was castigated as being rude by the White South."

And that was a slur on Dr. King and a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:46 PM

Apparently there is a semantic difference between the term "spiritualism" and "spirituality". The first can be defined as a religious affiliation with a Spiritualist
Church where as the second can't be credibly defined except as a reference to ghosts. The attempts to define "spirituality" are hampered by the fact that not many people agree on what it is and it is entirely scientifically unprovable.

People can offer definitions for "spirituality" but they fall short of meaning since they are subjective experiences that not everyone has. As subjective, they are not testable and are subject to questions of their validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:39 PM

I was again misinterpreted. What I said was I didn't think King was rude. On the contrary, I stated that he was castigated as being rude by the White South.
This was an attempt to explain why some may find statements rude and others logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:03 AM

Rude?? Dr. Martin Luther King jr Rude???

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 01:13 AM

Why the word MISTER? It isn't as if he is a surgeon?

Oy, Shaw! Nothing delusional about worshipping at the altar in S6 I'll have you know. Some of us recall the miracle when He came down to earth to save us all. And The Lord came amongst his people. Lo, he had a name. That exalted figure was Trevor Francis who with his son (David Hirst) and the holy ghost (Chris Waddle) saved us all.

It is an article of faith that twenty years on we the unworthy still recall. Chiefly because there hasn't been too much to celebrate since. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 12:16 AM

BTW FP, It wasn't Steve Shaw. Steve is way to sharp to Invoke Dr King and imply that he is rude. It was Stringsinger who tends to improvise.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:52 PM

" reasonably that some people considered King rude, he doesn't believe that himself in the least. "

I'm sorry, so sorry for that error. In my defense I can only say this.

I was so unnerved by the audacity, the unmitigated gall of his assertion that it affected the precision of my words!

OK he wasn't exactly saying that Dr. King was rude. But My Word! He was saying that Dr. King's words were careless enough to be mistaken for rude words. He thinks that his own Dawkins inspired assertions were an equal to Dr. King's God inspired testimonies and speeches, loved and revered by literally millions of people throughout the world, translated into dozens of languages, carved in granite on the walls of schools and libraries. Stringsinger compares his words and how people perceive his words to Dr. King's words and how people perceive Dr. Kings words.

Isn't that amazing? Isn't that astounding!? Isn't that sad?

He thinks that clearly implying that Christians are too deluded to raise their own kids is polite because he thinks that it is true. Did Dr. King utter anything to indicate that racists were too dumb to raise their own kids? I don't think so. I never heard such a thing. Did any of you ever hear such a thing?

Strings just pulled that example right out of his posterior region. Stringsinger has comparing HIM-self to DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR.

Stringsinger can search every archive, can search EVERY archive in every Television station and every RADIO station from Washington to Selma to the cool pacific coast and still not find a clip, a tape or a clipping of Dr. King being called RUDE.

WHY?
WHY DO YOU ASK?
It is because

DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR WAS NOT RUDE. Dr. King didn't start his speeches with insults to his audience or his enemies. He set out to battle racism and inequality. He did not set out to battle mothers and fathers and try to make them guilty for trying to raise their children in their own faith, in their own way.
DR KING WAS NOT THAT RUDE. DR. King was not that stupid. Dr. King was not MISTER RICHARD DAWKINS.

Stingsinger WOW!!! Comparing yourself and your mission to Dr. King's is very telling. It takes a huge lack of self awareness to go on an Atheistic Argumentative Jihad and invoke the memory of one of the greatest Christian leaders this country, no, this WORLD has ever seen.

Being polite is NOT a matter of interpretation. Being polite it a matter of intelligence. Being polite is a matter of empathy. Being polite is a matter of being able to see things from the other person's point of view. Being polite while telling people what you believe they need to hear without insulting their intelligence or their sanity.

DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR was a great speaker and a great persuader.
DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR had all of those qualities.

Mister Richard Dawkins has NONE of those qualities.
Dawkins instead is snide and condescending.
You Stringsinger, half as bad, are condescending but not snide. Good for you!

DAWKINS is no Martin Luther King Jr
Stringsinger YOU are no Martin Luther King Jr

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:51 PM

...and the Cleverlys do more for me spiritually than most of whut's been on this thread since early on. "The Girl With No Panty Line"...now there's a song with spiritual insight... : )

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:43 PM

"Are you really stupid enough to think he [King] was rude"

JTS, Steve Shaw gets on my nerves a bit sometimes, but if you slow down and pay attention, he was in no way saying that he believes that Martin Luther King was rude. In fact the obvious implication is that while Steve surmises quite reasonably that some people considered King rude, he doesn't believe that himself in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:38 PM

But when he diagnoses half the world as delusional it is he who is misusing scientific terms.

And 'tis you who misrepresents him. After years on forums like this, I've noticed that people who misrepresent others are very apt to misrepresent themselves also. He does not "diagnose" half the world as delusional. His remarks about delusion are strictly confined to the matter of religious belief. Musket is severely deluded about Sheffield Wednesday, but that does not make him unqualified delusional. Joe Offer believes in God yet he is an intensely rational man with whom a serious conversation is possible. You do not have sensible conversations, on the whole, with someone who is unqualified delusional. You clearly haven't read The God Delusion. What you say about it and Dawkins simply doesn't make sense. Much of what you type seems meant to suggest that you have read it. A clear misrepresentation of yourself, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:08 PM

I have taken up study of the spirtualISM of the SKEET religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3tRlFOqPio

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:56 PM

A logical rebuttal?

OK

"but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements."

It is when the disagreement is over whether or not the other person is lying.

"As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists."

Dawkins stopped making scientific arguments a couple of books ago I agree with most of what he says about evolution and cosmology. But when he diagnoses half the world as delusional it is he who is misusing scientific terms. If you were as unbiased about him as you claim to be, you would see that too.

" I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator"." Interesting, you hypothesis is "proved" by the fact that you made it.

Are you sure that you are interested in and knowledgeable about "logic"? I have a better question. Are you really arrogant enough to consider yourself comparable to Dr. Martin Luther King? Are you really stupid enough to think he was rude, with no evidence just because you are? If you had any shred of decency or integrity you would have proof of such a statement before you made it and start from that point rather than baseless speculation. That is very loaded statement for you to just pull it out of your butt.

Dr. Martin Luther King indeed!

"Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude. "

Surely you must realize that the issues under discussion are not Evolution or Cosmology or Science but your lack of manners. Surely one who demands logic from others, knows enough about logic to realize that ad hominem means "to the man" and that Books are not men.

Surely a student of logic would not have his head up his arse so far that he would not know that it is quite permissible to criticize THE TITLE of a book or a quote from a book as independent from the book. Surely one can criticize some things that a man has said without reading every condescending illogical, smug word he has ever written.

Not reading a book because you told me to? Delusional and rude? Who are you, a grade school teacher giving homework?

Get over yourself Strings. Using big words poorly does not make you seem wiser.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:18 PM

"An intelligent person can rationalize anything, a wise person doesn't try." ― Jen Knox

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:27 PM

Yes, the solution would be a logical rebuttal devoid of personal "hurts".

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:02 AM

" ad hominem attacks on books"


Is all I need to say :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:42 AM

"If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them."

If it's about what they purport to believe and suggest that the belief should not be criticized then I agree. To not allow discussion based on hurt feelings is not productive.


Ed T the suggestions are laudable. I applaud. Irenic would suggest eschewing destructive and judgmental invectives or recriminations.

Honesty is often "in the eye of the beholder"
but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements.

As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists. But they can't be bullied into changing, they must be shown credible evidence by science or logic and not from some holy book.

Being polite is often a matter of interpretation. Being rude is a judgement given by those who are often rude themselves. Any controversial opinion expressed can be characterized by those who don't agree with it as "being rude." I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator".
Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:42 AM

"If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them."

If it's about what they purport to believe and suggest that the belief should not be criticized then I agree. To not allow discussion based on hurt feelings is not productive.


Ed T the suggestions are laudable. I applaud. Irenic would suggest eschewing destructive and judgmental invectives or recriminations.

Honesty is often "in the eye of the beholder"
but the judgmental invective such as "telling lies" is not an honest way to handle disagreements.

As for adaptability, Dawkins and others have stated with proper scientific evidence, they would change their positions. It has always been the credo of most people who are called atheists. But they can't be bullied into changing, they must be shown credible evidence by science or logic and not from some holy book.

Being polite is often a matter of interpretation. Being rude is a judgement given by those who are often rude themselves. Any controversial opinion expressed can be characterized by those who don't agree with it as "being rude." I'm sure that Martin Luther King had the "rudeness" moniker pasted on him. After all, he was considered "an outside agitator".
Polite to me means sticking with the issues and not personalizing them to the degree that you silence information that may be uncomfortable and it certainly means avoiding ad hominem attacks on books that you haven't read. That's both delusional and rude.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:11 PM

Some thoughts I once saved from a website on good and effective communications. I post it for consideration only:

""Are you Irenic?
Being irenic in communications means to approach people peacefully. It is the opposite of being quarrelsome. It is admirable when individuals are passionate about their discussion but, ironically, these passions can often make a person so militant and hostile no one else wants to listen to him speak! A good communicator always keeps his cool. He does not let the polemics of others cause him to sacrifice his level-headed calmness. When correction is necessary, tact is defined by gentleness.

Are you honest?
For the communicator this includes the willingness to admit it, when they don't know things. The mark of a good communicators influence is not simply in how much he (or she) knows, but how much he realizes he doesn't know. The good communicator's job is not to have an answer for every question, but to be able to handle questions in an honest way, since he may have wrestled with the issue himself.You don't know that much. You are not that smart. You will never be an expert in every area

Are you adaptabile?
Are you willing to change your position? What if the evidence was not on your side? Are you led purely by your emotional convictions? If you cannot change, what gives you the right to require it of others? Good communicators are always adapting because they know they don't have it all figured out.

Are you transparent?
Good communicators open themselves to others, warts and all. Poor communicators present themselves on a pedestal, polished and clean. Giving off that image is a barrier to good and productivecommunications?

Are you polite? No need to go into this in detail , your parents likely defined it for you way back. Have you wandered from their good advice?""

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:43 PM

There ya go. A good point for consideration, SS.

What is?

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

"They could easily post their comments to existing threads on the topic they wish to speak to or start their own thread"

Seems the easiest thing would be for you to calmly explain what you meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:26 PM

There ya go. A good point for consideration, SS.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:15 PM

Would we also want to leave insults of groups at the door? Calling a group delusional when you know you are talking to a person in that group is no less insulting. It appears to be acceptable it OK when the insults are couched in weasel talk and second hand from Richard Dawkins, lecturer in zoology.

If someone is delusional apropos of a particular matter it's hardly an insult to tell the truth about them. What would be far more constructive, however, would be to focus a little more and state that their particular beliefs in relation to God are deluded. Yes, it isn't a nice term (neither is "militant atheist", come to think of it...), but at least it isn't pussyfooting around. The reason believers carry a delusion about the existence of God is that they persist in the belief in the face of having no evidence for and ignoring a massive body of evidence against. In any other walk of life, a position of that kind would be called deluded. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you should be immune from having the truth told about you. Being religious doesn't mean you deserve gentleness. And you clearly have no idea what weasel talk means. Do google it and educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:19 PM

Q, froggy and others (others also by email and by PM). Thanks. It IS amazing to me that people come on this thread and even post in other threads about the fact that they disagree with the thread title (even tho it is quite clear what I meant in the OP), tell all and sundry what the thread should be about, request that the title be changed and then forge on with what they want the tread to be about.

They could easily post their comments to existing threads on the topic they wish to speak to or start their own thread. So, to me, it comes down to this... they are bullies looking for someone to bully or they are self aggrandizing twits attempting to exhibit false superiority by slagging off on others. What I find even more amazing is that, when I protest in reasonable fashion, they seem to see it as a sign of weakness and become more aggressive. Then, when I tell them to fuck off (I figure they might understand THAT???), they say... "Look MOMMY. gnu swore! gnu swore at me! Spank him!!! MOMMY!!!" And such it goes. Even when I post a perfectly good explantion quoting definitions from dictionaries, the bullshit continues because they ignore my posts... after all, children who think they are golden boys don't ever have to apologize.

You children have your dicks tied to tour Mamas' apron strings. You little fucks ACTUALLY read my first post ONE MORE TIME and see if you REALLY do get my FUCKING POINTSSSSS. Think REAL HARD and you might have a chance of getting them... for a change. Wait... who am I kidding? None of you assholes will so I'll give youse assholes a hint about my secondary point which has taken up so much of this and another thread... "Lets see where it goes, shall we?" There. Got that? Good. Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:09 PM

"In order to do that Joe, we would have to stop the recriminations against individuals, ad- hominems and focus on the issues. Then maybe a true perspective could be gained on how different people see things. This takes work, though, and it appears easier just to insult others and pick fights."

Would we also want to leave insults of groups at the door? Calling a group delusional when you know you are talking to a person in that group is no less insulting. It appears to be acceptable it OK when the insults are couched in weasel talk and second hand from Richard Dawkins, lecturer in zoology.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:45 PM

I agree with de Waal and I think that people on this website are open to debates if they are not presented with malice, condemnation, judgments or bruised feelings. Accusations of being "poor listeners" do nothing to further the dialogue or debate here.

It's not clear to me who the "moderates" on this thread are. Those who claim to be moderates often seem like radicals with agendas. Perhaps moderation is in "the eye of the beholder".

"Joe Offer sez: Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a discussion among a number of people who are able to see the issue from a variety of perspectives?"

In order to do that Joe, we would have to stop the recriminations against individuals, ad- hominems and focus on the issues. Then maybe a true perspective could be gained on how different people see things. This takes work, though, and it appears easier just to insult others and pick fights.

Mr. Dawkins does have a track record. He is a lecturer in zooology at Oxford (you don't get to speak there unless you have a track record), and a Fellow of New College. He also has eminence as a biologist, every bit as much as de Waal (whom I also admire). He is known and respected among scientists as an ecologist and biologist. In my opinion, one of his accomplishments which is not done much is an elegant defense of Charles Darwin and a lucid well-written book illustrating many of Darwinian principles as well as fine illustrations, "The Greatest Show On Earth". It is worth reading. In a country where only 14% think that Evolution is true, I think Professor Dawkins is doing a tremendous educational service. The biggest detractor of evolution comes from religious commentators who have brain-washed much of the American public.

I have hope that we can all talk about this issue here without ad-hominem brick bat throwing and verbal vendettas against those who disagree with each of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:38 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:23 PM

Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack.

You are such a silly man. Did you read my big post below? If anyone's a one-track-minded poor listener round here, Jack, it would appear to be you. Have a good look at that post. "

The one that says this?

"But read the thing. It isn't long, and I have no wish to be accused of quoting out of context."

Which you wrote right after you quoted De Waal out of context and said it was me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!

Thanks for the laugh. Yes I did read it. But I did not read the article about Thatcher. I wasn't interested. I have no idea how it pertains to your careless quoting other than pointing out the irony of doing something then immediately decrying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:23 PM

Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack.

You are such a silly man. Did you read my big post below? If anyone's a one-track-minded poor listener round here, Jack, it would appear to be you. Have a good look at that post.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:02 PM

Thanks be to Q. If I had looked up the definition, I wouldn't have been inclined to be one of those dinging at gnu about the thread title. I'm so used to hearing "spiritualism" in a secondary definition, I assumed that was the primary def.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:07 AM

Jack the Sailor sez: What I would love to see is a debate among moderates.

_______________________________

Joe here is that quote in context. Please not the name at the end and how much the totality of the statement agrees with your point about different perspectives.
________________________________

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates. Perhaps it is an illusion that this can be achieved on the Internet, given how it magnifies disagreements, but I do think that most people will be open to a debate that respects both the beliefs held by many and the triumphs of science. There is no obligation for non-religious people to hate religion, and many believers are open to interrogating their own convictions. If the radicals on both ends are unable to talk with each other, this should not keep the rest of us from doing so.
Frans de Waal

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:37 PM

"Jack the Sailor sez: What I would love to see is a debate among moderates."

Sigh, Steve,

Jack the Sailor Posted a Quote of Frans de Waal saying that.

If you had only taken the time to read to the end of the paragraph. Look, his name is there and everything!

What I would love to see is a debate among moderates. Perhaps it is an illusion that this can be achieved on the Internet, given how it magnifies disagreements, but I do think that most people will be open to a debate that respects both the beliefs held by many and the triumphs of science. There is no obligation for non-religious people to hate religion, and many believers are open to interrogating their own convictions. If the radicals on both ends are unable to talk with each other, this should not keep the rest of us from doing so.
Frans de Waal

Its time to bring out that other quote again. Of course being a "poor listener" you still don't get it. You don't read to comprehend, you simply skim looking for phrases to snip and attack. That makes it difficult to debate you but pretty easy to demonstrate over and over again that you are exactly the type of militant atheist dogmatist Dr. de Waal is describing.

Dogmatists have one advantage: they are poor listeners. This ensures sparkling conversations when different kinds of them get together the way male birds gather at "leks" to display splendid plumage for visiting females. It almost makes one believe in the "argumentative theory," according to which human reasoning didn't evolve for the sake of truth, but rather to shine in discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:48 PM

Amazing how many people define words differently from references such as the OED and Merriam Webster's dictionaries.
.
Nothing wrong with Gnu's heading to this thread.

Webster's has a simple, first definition:
"The view that spirit is a prime element of reality."

They add a second subsection, belief that spirits of the dead communicate, etc., but this is not the primary meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Spiritualism as opposed to religion?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:19 AM

Steve, thanks for the info on Giles Fraser. He sounds like one of the few reasonable religionists on the subject.

"But what she never appreciated was that faith is fundamentally bound up with doubt."

What an excellent statement! The arrogance of these know-it-all Christians can be summed up in this. This goes for those who fly the banner of "spirituality" as well.

" Faith is the confession of a failed atheism," wow! Here's one religionist that can think out of the box.

It's significant that the Council of Nicea left Doubting Thomas out of the bible.

It reinforces the idea that you can't know or trust anything that is not scientifically verifiable and even that is subject to change but when it is changed , it stands on the shoulders of logic, reason and that which was known to be true at the time by reliable scientific sources. In other words, there was evidential proof of an empirical nature.

Absolutism is a form of arrogance and an appeal to Authority will never logically win any logical points.