Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #1271 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-10 16:17 +0100 |
| Last post | 2012-07-17 10:08 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-10 16:17 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 08:36 -0700
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-10 16:46 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! ReverendFuzzy <google@msbministries.org> - 2012-07-10 09:23 -0700
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-11 09:47 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-11 13:56 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-12 09:38 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-12 14:18 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-12 18:31 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 09:57 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 07:10 -0300
[Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-13 11:59 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 09:20 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-13 13:58 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 16:11 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 05:55 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 12:49 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 10:40 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 15:27 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 11:55 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 09:22 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-18 15:41 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-20 09:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 06:04 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-20 10:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 14:33 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 14:44 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 20:28 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 16:40 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 21:06 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 17:26 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-20 22:02 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-20 19:49 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-22 09:53 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-22 09:14 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-23 09:43 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-23 09:52 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Jason Keats <jkeats@melbpcDeleteThis.org.au> - 2012-07-23 20:34 +1000
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Schmidt <sss@online.de> - 2012-07-14 15:27 +0200
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 12:41 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-15 11:26 -0400
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-15 14:42 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 09:18 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 08:57 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-16 10:21 -0400
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-18 12:58 -0300
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 09:32 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 10:18 +0100
Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-16 16:44 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 09:53 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 16:24 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 11:54 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 18:11 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 15:07 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 20:18 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 13:08 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2012-07-13 12:30 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 15:11 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 20:06 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-13 16:47 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-13 15:56 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 05:59 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 12:58 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 10:55 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 15:40 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 12:11 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2012-07-14 18:57 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> - 2012-07-16 09:23 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 10:44 +0100
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Coder X" <coder@x.com> - 2012-07-13 13:38 -0400
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> - 2012-07-14 06:02 -0300
Re: JESUS IS LORD! "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> - 2012-07-17 10:08 +0100
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-14 12:41 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <jts3vi$enn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1330 |
"Schmidt" <sss@online.de> escribió en el mensaje news:jtrs4g$rma$1@speranza.aioe.org... Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter. But yes, there is a part of genetic, another part of learned (influence of the environment) and another part of self decision. As in almost any other area of life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Coder X" <coder@x.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-15 11:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <jtunfl$sp3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1337 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message news:jts3vi$enn$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > "Schmidt" <sss@online.de> escribió en el mensaje > news:jtrs4g$rma$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter. That wasn't very nice. I'd like you to make your posts less nonsensical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-15 14:42 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <jtuvd9$mtn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1341 |
"Coder X" <coder@x.com> escribió en el mensaje news:jtunfl$sp3$1@dont-email.me... > > "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message > news:jts3vi$enn$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> >> "Schmidt" <sss@online.de> escribió en el mensaje >> news:jtrs4g$rma$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> >> Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter. > > That wasn't very nice. I'd like you to make your posts less nonsensical. And I'd like you to become a lurker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 09:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju0io8$3bl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1337 |
On 14/07/2012 16:41, Eduardo wrote: > "Schmidt" <sss@online.de> escribi� en el mensaje > news:jtrs4g$rma$1@speranza.aioe.org... > > Please Olaf, I want to ask you to make posts a bit shorter. > > But yes, there is a part of genetic As I said, I was "born this way" > another part of learned (influence of the environment) I'm sorry, homosexuality is not contagious or catching. > and another part of self decision. Yes, I chose to be myself and love my girlfriend rather than trying to make "christians" happy in their delusions of heteronormativity. -- Deanna Earley (dee.earley@icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/ iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 08:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju0hi4$vr4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1325 |
On 14/07/2012 09:55, Eduardo wrote: > "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribi� en el mensaje > news:jtpdr3$ia6$1@dont-email.me... >> "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message >>> what I abominate(*) is what is evil. >> >> Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on >> gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of >> something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an >> abomination? > > Yes, homosexuality carries evil. Prove it. The only evil thing here is hatred. > As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives. I try and say exactly the same about "christians" but then people like you go and prove me wrong. -- Deanna Earley (dee@earlsoft.co.uk)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 10:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju17rl$uf8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1345 |
| >> something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an | >> abomination? | > | > Yes, homosexuality carries evil. | | Prove it. | The only evil thing here is hatred. | | > As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives. | I'm curious about the word "carries". It sounds to me like Eduardo is not expressing hatred at all, but rather a belief that homosexual activity is a "sin" which will "anger" his "God" and thus block one from entering the Heaven that he believes in. His beliefs may be absolutist and simplistic, but they seem to be sincere. He hasn't actually stated that he himself is not gay. He could easily be gay and also evangelically anti-gay. There are lots of such people. Or he might struggle with adultery, another activity that "carries evil" according to his beliefs. But I don't get the sense that Eduardo would consider all adulterers to be inherently evil. I only wish that evangelicals would focus on some of the more important moral directives in the Bible, and be a bit less titillated by the "naughty bits". Usury against someone of one's own tribe is a sin for Jews. All usury is a sin for Christians. Yet the US, predominantly Christian, is in an economic depression due in part to not only legal usury, but almost totally unregulated usury. It's perfectly legal for large banks to operate not only as lenders but as loansharking operations, charging interest in the range of 20-40% for loans of money that the US gov't is licensing them to print. I've never heard an evangelical complain about that. Personally, if I had to assess the "sin" of a notably generous, smoking, drinking, gay adulterer in comparison to a teetotalling, hetero, non-cheating, Bible-carrying loanshark, I'd guess the former is far more likely to be pleasing God. Doesn't the former clearly have a more virtuous heart? On the other hand, what's evil? According to the Googlites and a lot of semi-literate geeks, "evil" is a general use, vaguely defined term for "bad". The opposite of the many glibly used superlatives like "cool" or "amazing". Ex.: "Those cookies are evil. They've been sitting out since yesterday." :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-18 12:58 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju6mef$kah$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1349 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> escribió en el mensaje news:ju17rl$uf8$1@dont-email.me... Mayayana, I agree with Mike that you assume a lot of things about other people but you don't have a clue about those things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "DaveO" <djo@dial.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-17 09:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju37u0$sn4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1345 |
"Deanna Earley" <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:ju0hi4$vr4$1@speranza.aioe.org... > On 14/07/2012 09:55, Eduardo wrote: >> "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> escribi? en el mensaje >> news:jtpdr3$ia6$1@dont-email.me... >>> "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message >>>> what I abominate(*) is what is evil. >>> >>> Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views >>> on >>> gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of >>> something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an >>> abomination? >> >> Yes, homosexuality carries evil. > > Prove it. > The only evil thing here is hatred. > >> As long as they don't any harm others it's just about their own lives. > > I try and say exactly the same about "christians" but then people like you > go and prove me wrong. Nicely put. Cheers from the sideline - go girl go!! Regards DaveO.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Deanna Earley <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 10:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju0m8o$bst$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1325 |
On 14/07/2012 09:55, Eduardo wrote: >>> what I abominate(*) is what is evil. >> >> Was that an almost hidden part of your own answer regarding your views on >> gay people, or were you just generalising? Are gay people part of >> something evil? Is that what you think? Do you believe they are an >> abomination? > > Yes, homosexuality carries evil. Oh, and you may want to pull the power cable out :p http://baptistplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/devils_machine-jpeg.jpg -- Deanna Earley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Coder X" <coder@x.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-16 16:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [Still OT] Re: JESUS IS LORD! |
| Message-ID | <ju1ugc$k5h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1348 |
"Deanna Earley" <dee@earlsoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:ju0m8o$bst$1@speranza.aioe.org... > Oh, and you may want to pull the power cable out :p > http://baptistplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/devils_machine-jpeg.jpg > LMAO!!! I'll bet she hasn't had consensual sex since the day she turned kooky.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 09:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtp924$ihu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1307 |
| You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem? | It's in conflict with his beliefs. It's striking that there's so much talk here of belief and so little talk of faith or exploration or reflection. Belief implies deciding that something is true, regardless of experience or evidence. So there's a very big difference between deliberate belief, as a device, and dogmatic belief. (Believing vehemently while forgetting that one actually chose, willy nilly, to do so.) You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in an absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed "radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period. Each of you is imposing a filter on the possible reality that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't tolerate each other's stance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtpejh$mjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1311 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:jtp924$ihu$1@dont-email.me... > Belief implies deciding that something is true, regardless > of experience or evidence. No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies deciding that something is true, or at the very least is highly likely to be true, after having taken account of the various bits of experience or evidence that are available, even though those things do not in themselves provide absolute proof. > You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in > an absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed > "radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see > is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period. You're making things up, Mayayana. That is not what I believe at all. The fact that I cannot see something does NOT cause me to insist that it does not exist! You should stop making things up about people and then spouting them in an attempt to give your own views more credence than they actually deserve. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtpg5e$15c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1314 |
| > Belief implies deciding that something is true, regardless | > of experience or evidence. | | No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies deciding that something | is true, or at the very least is highly likely to be true, after having | taken account of the various bits of experience or evidence that are | available, even though those things do not in themselves provide absolute | proof. | Yes, but those bits of experience and evidence can be rather whimsical. And once one makes the decision, it's still just that: *deciding* that something is true. That's an unnecessary absolutism which filters subsequent perceptions. Your belief that God does not exist is frivolous. You simply don't need to make that decision in the context of your life and experience. In fact, such a belief is a filter by definition, since there is no reason whatsoever to ever *decide* that something is true, period. Unfortunately, your religion of scientific materialism precludes you from entertaining the possibility that you might actually be pre-defining reality through your beliefs. You assume (believe without question) that reality, at any level, is an absolute object that you are fully capable of comprehending as an absolute subject... Radically naive concretism. When you look at it that way your particular dogma is rather irrational and far-fetched. I'd sooner believe that the universe is run by an 80-foot-tall man with a white beard, wearing a nightgown. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 18:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtpkra$utq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1315 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:jtpg5e$15c$1@dont-email.me... >>> [Mayayana said] Belief implies deciding that something >>> is true, regardless of experience or evidence. >> [Mike said] No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies >> deciding that something is true, or at the very least is highly >> likely to be true, after having taken account of the various bits >> of experience or evidence that are available, even though those >> things do not in themselves provide absolute proof. > [Mayayana said] Yes, but those bits of experience and > evidence can be rather whimsical. You have proposed that such things "can be" rather whimsical without also proposing that they "can be" founded in something much more concrete than whimsy. Attempting to belittle things in such a way when talking about others whilst not doing so when talking about yourself is a cheap physochological trick that does not wash with me, nor I suspect with anyone else. > And once one makes the decision, it's still just that: *deciding* > that something is true. That's an unnecessary absolutism which > filters subsequent perceptions. No it is not. It is not absolutism at all, or at least an absolutist attitude is certainly not a prerequisite or an outcome of belief. You are again making things up. Some people believe in the existence of a supernatural God and some do not, and some express neutrality. Whether a particular believer in God is being absolutist in his belief is up to him, and it is not necessarily always the case. They may merely believe that the existence of a supernatural God is, for them, the most likely case. For myself, I believe that by far the most likely case is that a supernatural God does not exist. It is definitelty not absolutism, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop attempting to bolster your own ego by pretending that it is. > You assume (believe without question) that reality, at > any level, is an absolute object that you are fully capable > of comprehending as an absolute subject... > Radically naive concretism. You are wrong again. I do not believe without question at all, and neither do I profess absolute certainty. It might suit you to think that I do, in fact I'm sure it does suit you to entertain such thoughts, because it then allows you to stand aloof in an attempt to give your own position, whatever it is, more credence than it actually deserves. Everything you say, and everything you do in your attempts to bolster your own ego, is based on your own misconceptions of the views of others and it therefore fails. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtprfb$9a4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1318 |
| >> [Mike said] No it does not. In almost all cases belief implies | >> deciding that something is true, or at the very least is highly | >> likely to be true, after having taken account of the various bits | >> of experience or evidence that are available, even though those | >> things do not in themselves provide absolute proof. | | > [Mayayana said] Yes, but those bits of experience and | > evidence can be rather whimsical. | | You have proposed that such things "can be" rather whimsical without also | proposing that they "can be" founded in something much more concrete than | whimsy. Attempting to belittle things in such a way when talking about | others whilst not doing so when talking about yourself is a cheap I didn't mean to imply that my mind is any less sloppy. Indeed, that's why I try not to take my beliefs too seriously. I know how arbitrary and emotionally motivated they can be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtps99$ebb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1321 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote in message news:jtprfb$9a4$1@dont-email.me... > I didn't mean to imply that my mind is any less sloppy. > Indeed, that's why I try not to take my beliefs too > seriously. I know how arbitrary and emotionally > motivated they can be. Well they can be, yes, but it is not necessarily so and in fact is more often not the case. Belief is just that. A belief that something is true in the absence of concrete proof. Religious belief (as opposed to belief in general) does of course often, but not always, carry emotional baggage with it. I must admit that I sometimes myself get emotionally involved when I hear of people who apparently have a genuine belief in the existence of their God and when I see the terrible things that many of them do and have done in the past in His name. Admittedly there are people who do terrible things to others regardless of whether they believe in God or not, but it is the arrogance of the "believers" who do such things that I find so hard to swallow. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 13:08 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtph56$nb8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1311 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> escribió en el mensaje news:jtp924$ihu$1@dont-email.me... >| You don't want God and the Bible, I do. What's the problem? > | > It's in conflict with his beliefs. It's striking that there's > so much talk here of belief and so little talk of faith or > exploration or reflection. We can't talk about everything in a post message. And for me, belief and faith are the same (in almost every case, and they are in this one) Exploration and reflection are related, of course. > Belief implies deciding that something > is true, regardless of experience or evidence. No. It's deciding that something is true but taking into account all evidence (experience is just part of the evidence). What you say is "blind faith", that's a fanatic attitud and that's not belief really (or what I mean when I talk about belief). > So there's a > very big difference between deliberate belief, as a device, > and dogmatic belief. (Believing vehemently while forgetting that > one actually chose, willy nilly, to do so.) All the time and every person decides to believe and disbelieve things. That's a process of the mind, everyone is doing this continuosly. > You believe in an all-powerful God. Mike believes in an > absolute scientific materialism; what might be termed > "radically naive concretism" -- the idea that what you see > is there and what you don't see, ain't. Period. Yes, period. > Each of you is imposing a filter on the possible reality No. I'm not imposing a filter to reality. A filter is something that allows to pass some things and discard others. I'm not doing this. I allow all the things, analyze them, then I come to conclussions, and I discard lies (or things that I come to the conclussion that are not true or wrong), I don't discard evidences (reality -in your words-). What I do is an interpretation of the evidence, and that's another thing. In fact, we as humans have very little information from our perception, and we need to learn how to interpret that information that is partial. That's why there are so many beliefs, because we cannot perceive all the reality. > that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are > contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't > tolerate each other's stance? What do you say that I don't tolerate?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jtpi8d$enj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1316 |
| And for me, belief and faith are the same (in almost every case, and they | are in this one).... | No. It's deciding that something is true but taking into account all | evidence (experience is just part of the evidence). | What you say is "blind faith", that's a fanatic attitud and that's not | belief really (or what I mean when I talk about belief). The words get confusing. I'm thinking of faith as experience that doesn't need confirmation or belief, while belief is simply that: deciding that something is true. Faith doesn't need to decide. It knows. But what it knows is not empirical/factual. Faith might know God, but it doesn't need to believe in God. Sometimes people try to create faith out of belief, and then they end up needing to convince others, or adopt a fanatical position themselves, because they don't actually *know* for themselves. Sometimes that kind of belief can lead to faith, but not always. So I wasn't using belief and faith to mean the same thing. Semantics. | > that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are | > contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't | > tolerate each other's stance? | | What do you say that I don't tolerate? | Nothing I know of. I meant that you and Mike are at unresolvable extremes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 15:11 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <jtpobm$a2e$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #1317 |
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> escribió en el mensaje news:jtpi8d$enj$1@dont-email.me... > The words get confusing. I'm thinking of faith as > experience that doesn't need confirmation or belief, > while belief is simply that: deciding that something > is true. Faith doesn't need to decide. It knows. But > what it knows is not empirical/factual. Faith might > know God, but it doesn't need to believe in God. > > Sometimes people try to create faith out of belief, > and then they end up needing to convince others, or > adopt a fanatical position themselves, because they > don't actually *know* for themselves. > > Sometimes that kind of belief can lead to faith, but > not always. So I wasn't using belief and faith to mean > the same thing. Semantics. I don't talk of belief in that sense. For me belief is something that you accept having enough information, it's not a guess or something that you think but you are not quite convinced. When you believe something you are sure. I know that in English (and also in Spanish) we use the word "believe", as saying "I believe that..." when you are not quite sure, and it's just something that you think that could be true but you have some doubts. Well, when I talk about believing in these other contexts, it's not like that. It's basically "to accept something". You could not be totally sure or convinced at the beginning, but once you are on that path (the path of believing something) you can see more evidence that confirms your initial acceptance or to deny it, and then you don't believe that any more. Then I could say: to believe (in this context) is to be convinced about something. Of course you can understand the word in other meaning, but I explain how I'm using it here. > | > that you're willing to perceive. And your filters are > | > contradictory. Is it any surprise, then, that you can't > | > tolerate each other's stance? > | > | What do you say that I don't tolerate? > | > > Nothing I know of. I meant that you and Mike > are at unresolvable extremes. Why unresolvable? I have no problem with Mike. I appreciate him because of his help and contributions to the VB group. And about I'm at an "extreme"... may be, I don't want to be a mediocre anyway
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-13 20:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jtprjq$a18$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1320 |
"Eduardo" <mm@mm.com> wrote in message
news:jtpobm$a2e$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> I don't talk of belief in that sense. For me belief is something that
> you accept having enough information, it's not a guess or something
> that you think but you are not quite convinced. When you believe
> something you are sure.
Well that's fine. If that's what you personally mean when you talk about
your beliefs then feel free to continue to do so. As long as you tell us
what you personally mean by it then it isn't a problem.
> I know that in English (and also in Spanish) we use the word
> "believe", as saying "I believe that..." when you are not quite
> sure, and it's just something that you think that could be true
> but you have some doubts.
Well I don't know whether I agree with your phrases "not quite sure" and
"have some doubts" because that implies such uncertainty and doubts are
foremost in a person's mind when he says the word "believe", which is not
usually the case. However, that definition (although not your own personal
definition as first stated) is reasonably close, and is way off the mark of
the definition suggested by Mayayana, which is clearly wrong. According to
the Oxford English Dictionary the word is defined as follows:
To accept that (something) is true, especially without proof
But arguing semantics is not really useful anyway. The act of amplifying
what we each individually mean when we say something in a specific context
should suffice in most cases, unless of course someone is in the business of
deliberately trading one person off against another in a futile attempt to
add credence to his own rarely expressed views, as has sometimes been the
case in this thread.
Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc
csiph-web