Huh? WTF?

[NonEntity]

(02-26-2012 03:43 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

---

Looks like the inevitable thread drift has happened.

Yeah. That's a problem. Especially if I'm around. My mind tends to make connections and follow threads in a dozen directions at once. I think that is a good thing, but its hell on thread continuity.

Feel free to try and bring it back in focus. By the way (see, that's not all that much more difficult than, say... BTW) what WAS* the point of the thread?

- NonE


* NOT "wide area service"

[eye2i2hear]

(02-26-2012 03:52 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 03:43 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

---

Looks like the inevitable thread drift has happened.

... BTW) what WAS* the point of the thread?

Can a thread titled "Huh? WTF?" even have drift (much less a point)?!?

2

[Dionysus]

(02-26-2012 01:58 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I am incredibly ignorant, as is everyone. It is impossible, physically impossible, as well as temporally so, for anyone to know anything but a very tiny fraction of all of the possible things there are to know.

I think Rush said it best in song:

"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-26-2012 03:52 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  By the way (see, that's not all that much more difficult than, say... BTW) what WAS* the point of the thread?
* NOT "wide area service"

To get a sense of what the bickering was about.

To possibly lay the foundation for a look at the programming of blorp, to determine how blorps get created.
(Blorp is a nonsensical term to handle a specific belief - positions and understandings NOT based on material evidence and NOT based on logical proof but instead based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality.)

[NonEntity]

(02-26-2012 04:26 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Can a thread titled "Huh? WTF?" even have drift (much less a point)?!?

Speaking of drift, I'm reminded of a '64 'Vette, 327 with a 411 rear end, broad sweeper of a turn... MAN!

Oh. Sorry. Where were we now?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(02-26-2012 04:32 PM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  (Blorp is a nonsensical term to handle a specific belief - positions and understandings NOT based on material evidence and NOT based on logical proof but instead based on imaginings, delusions, fantasies, and outright disconnects from reality.)

see also (known as): tabooing your terms

bonus also: 37 Ways...

---

(02-26-2012 04:34 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Speaking of drift, I'm reminded of ...

... a sailing excursion, where the anchor... didn't...

(and it was a biG "now, where were we?!")

[Marc Stevens]

(02-26-2012 03:33 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

I declare you a taxpayer. Now, as a taxpayer, we must determine the amount you owe us.

See what I mean? Marc would be jumping all over that, but when I point it out regarding the proof of a god, well it's "BS."

- NonE

No, you asserted everything about religion required a lack of evidence/faith and you know that's not true. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize, that's how I remember it anyway and that is what the "BS" referred to. I thought we had some email/IM about this already.

Any assertion/generalizaion everything about all religions requires faith or belief without evidence is obviously inaccurate.

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-27-2012 10:20 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  

(02-26-2012 03:33 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

I declare you a taxpayer. Now, as a taxpayer, we must determine the amount you owe us.

See what I mean? Marc would be jumping all over that, but when I point it out regarding the proof of a god, well it's "BS."

- NonE

No, you asserted everything about religion required a lack of evidence/faith and you know that's not true. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize, that's how I remember it anyway and that is what the "BS" referred to. I thought we had some email/IM about this already.

Any assertion/generalizaion everything about all religions requires faith or belief without evidence is obviously inaccurate.

Sorry Mr. Stevens. I poked the stick in this hornets nest with my post.

[Grey beard]

I hoped that faith, belief, religion would be tolerated in a voluntary society.

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

Thread's already drifted.

(02-26-2012 04:34 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Speaking of drift, I'm reminded of a '64 'Vette, 327 with a 411 rear end, broad sweeper of a turn... MAN!

[eye2i2hear]

(02-27-2012 10:36 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  I poked the stick in this hornets nest with my post.

Care to expound upon/qualify who the "hornets" are in this, honey?

Est circa NonE Wrote:a 411 rear end, broad

Is that anything like that 911 rear ending that Statue Of Liberty broad took?

---

...

I hoped that challenging any religious adherents by examining the facts would be tolerated in a voluntary society.

[Habenae Est Dominatus]

(02-27-2012 11:26 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 10:36 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  I poked the stick in this hornets nest with my post.

Care to expound upon/qualify who the "hornets" are in this, honey?

I'm not qualified to testify regarding hornets.

[eye2i2hear]

(02-26-2012 07:43 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Another factor is that there is an ongoing debate on how "religion" is being framed and used here. <snip>

The framing of "religion", as with the framing of anything, depends upon your position. What is framed by my window depends upon if I am standing to the left, the right, or in the middle of my living room.

Agreed, easily enuff. But I offer that my point was a bit different. My defining of the word religion, including appealing to it's etymology, doesn't distinguish Stateology from Theosology; Statism from Theism; from there being men saying The State exists from there being men who say The God exists; the study of Authority from the study of, well, Authority? There is after all a quite popular terms for the topic, i.e. theology, theism, god.

So why the persistence here (of all places?), yes particularly by Marc, of using-- framing the word religion only as implying Theology/Godism and not Stateology/Statism? I offer that the only logical reason can be, to seek to distinguish and distance the two rather than seeing them as they factually are: identical in origin (if not historically, and depending upon locale, identical in fruit?).

Otherwise, it seems the glaring, obvious resultant cognitive dissonance: Marc says he doesn't want us to discuss religion on the forum and states that The State is a religion.

NonEntity Wrote:Huh? WTF?

Indeed.

Why not just say: I ask that we not discuss theology here? Or I ask that we not discuss God here?

In case you might have not gotten to it yet, I'll offer that a nigh direct parallel of this being significant is found around these parts with the word anarchy, where the popular usage is persistently resisted if not refuted? [whether there's a mental block, per a Commandment, to not speak of _od or to not deny Him before men, well, that's another horse of 4 colors to choose, so let's just go with "religion", by GOD!]

Quote:I actually find dogma to be interchangeable with science and government as well.

Dogma to me means: Think how and what we tell you to think - which means DON'T think, just regurgitate what we feed you.

Again, easily agreeable with me. As far as the science aspect, tho, the key distinction of whether it goes religious or not is whether it's questionable and changeable, and upon who's Authority to say, no? Not to overlook that the very premise of science is the willingness to re-examine it all.
I'm unaware of any science books heralded as being Holy/Sacred (yet --and noting that in the hands of Statist religionists, there's deff a grey line and a future possibility; for many Godists, their Holy Script is a the science book; oi vey).

Quote:

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

Marc Stevens Wrote:No matter how many times I've said/written it, it's just ignored. Here it is again: It's not always a good idea to start a conversation with:

Dude you're retarded

My argument with it is that there's zero evidence been given to date that any one on this forum of voluntaryists has even made such a broad brush statement, much less the overwhelming majority here would believe it about Marc's overall capability (context can be crucial). In other words frivolous or irrelevant here.

Please rephrase.

Might I first ask that you please re-read (s-l-o-w-l-y might help)?

It may help to also read or re-read the OP of Marc's in the "Hardcore Atheist> Purpose" sub-forum?

Quote:I think Mr. Stevens has made his point with a parable, with a metaphor, and right now, I think you may have missed his point. I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point so I could very well be wrong in thinking you've missed his point. I'll give it another go after you rephrase what you are trying to get across to me.

Agreeable2. I can certainly miss a point too! But I don't yet see that I'm missing Marc's.

In a nutshell, I find him pressing his belief into reality here by making a topic divisive because he's declared it to be divisive. [an excellent Voltaire Admonition moment might here to indeed, ask for the definition of "divisive"... and the facts offered in support?]

Quote:

(02-25-2012 04:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  Marc might consider following his own advice, as I easily enough hear him saying, when this aspect of religion comes up for discussion, immediately to the poster:

Dude you're Atheist.

And Atheist for him apparently means "inherently divisive". End of discussion. It's not always a good way to start a conversation, indeed.

Again, please rephrase.

Admittedly, my writing is a bit of an acquired taste? But if I may please suggest again, a simple slow re-read?

And does it help to also read or re-read the OP of Marc's in the "Hardcore Atheist> Purpose" sub-forum, looking for/noting a "broad brush"?

My questions have been: 1.) where is the evidence in the form of posts from this forum that supports his quote statements? Where has anyone here said those things about Marc? 2.) on what basis is drawing such statements made elsewhere and by others, relevant on a forum where it's participants are on the record as being peace-seeking voluntaryists (much less that voluntary theory is built upon logic, reasoning, and factual evidence, thus something Marc is clearly, if not inherently capable of)?

Where I draw the conclusion, because no evidence having been presented otherwise, that Marc doesn't want to discuss the facts regarding Faith and is using the emotional fear-monger (or to be kinder, hyperbole) of "Divisive!" to squash it. Akin to how I see NonEntity expressing the point using the label "tax payer", I see Marc using the word "atheist"; hence, you are an atheist if you even bring up the topic of questioning God and tax protesters atheists are divisive of The Union Forum, period. aka Guilty as labeled, guilty as Charged.

Where of course, even expressing such as I've been doing here IS: DIVISIVE.

NonEntity Wrote:Huh? WTF?

Indeed.

Quote:What is "this aspect of religion" to which you refer?

Hopefully I've brought that out now? But JIC, I mean simply the Godist, Faithist, or "Theology" religion, distinguished from "TheState" religion.

Quote:I have this other thought: You only need to get a believer to examine and critically think about one belief. Other beliefs will be examined in due course once a person realizes maybe they don't have all the answers and truths of the universe.

Which flies in the face, cognitively dissonant, of the religious, in both majorly popular varieties i.e. State & God. With both there is an alleged Authority that ultimately settles both for all. The issue is just over who enforces it, how, and when. For some, it's allegorical; for others not so much. But ultimately, only "G_d" can "say"!?! (personally) Circle is a square.

Quote:I believe that the Great Wall of China exists. I can never properly conclude that the GWOC exists until I go to China and touch the wall. I must take it on faith that the pictures of the GWOC that I have observed are not some artist's photoshop creation meant to deceive me.

I like this; nice reminder. [side-bar: are there any wailers at that East Wall... yet?]

And if a wall falls in the forest but there's no one there to hear it, is there something to see...?!

I've also enjoyed and/or found your posts stimulating provocative thought.

ps: if there is still need for rephrasing, please ask again; eye'll c what i can do2~

[NonEntity]

(02-27-2012 10:20 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  No, you asserted everything about religion required a lack of evidence/faith and you know that's not true. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize, that's how I remember it anyway and that is what the "BS" referred to. I thought we had some email/IM about this already.

Any assertion/generalizaion everything about all religions requires faith or belief without evidence is obviously inaccurate.

Sigh.

I have said over and over and over and over... that I don't care what you believe. What I have an issue with is the METHODOLOGY of "faith" as a tool of thought. I've said this every which way I can think of, but you want to make it about gods and such. Fine.

If the I.R.S. people have faith in their ideas you shouldn't be challenging them. It is apparently not acceptable behavior.

- NonE

---

(02-27-2012 11:39 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  I'm not qualified to testify regarding hornets.

Glad we've ESTablished that.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(02-27-2012 01:28 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 10:20 AM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  No, you asserted everything about religion required a lack of evidence/faith and you know that's not true. If I misunderstood your post, I apologize, that's how I remember it anyway and that is what the "BS" referred to. I thought we had some email/IM about this already.

Any assertion/generalizaion everything about all religions requires faith or belief without evidence is obviously inaccurate.

Sigh Oi vey.

<snip>
- NonE

---

[/public service2i]

(02-27-2012 01:28 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 11:39 AM)Habenae Est Dominatus Wrote:  I'm not qualified to testify regarding hornets.

Glad we've ESTablished that.

- NonE

Youse guys! Youse guys!!!