Australian Animals, dogs, humans, and creationism

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Vikkor (LOL) You idiot! *smack vikkor under the ear*

God didn't make australian animals.

the rainbow serpent did.

Of COURSE!!!!

How could I forget!!!!!!

Photos and all to prove it.

http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/rainbow.php

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Uh, yeah, but the Rainbow Serpent also created the Bunyip, and there's just no explaining that thingamajig.

So...your religion consists of:

"Uh, yeah, but the Rainbow Serpent also created the Bunyip, and there's just no explaining that thingamajig."

Odd.

But that's religion.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

true

0 Replies

Kadichaman coming. gonna take your kidney fat. poor fella you!

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Expectations certainly are not concrete substantives--but that does not make them illusory. As i approach a traffic light, i have the expectation that cross traffic will stop, and that expectation is based on experience. If i approach a god in prayer, the expectation i have is based on no experience, only on blind faith. You can play all the games you want attempting to introduce your philosophical predilections into a discussion of language and the meanings of words. It will not change that religion has the significant distinction from other forms of expectation that it is based on blind faith, and not on experience. For that reason, and all philosophical games about meanings and how language conditions our experience of the world, i cannot accept a claim that everyone has their own personal religion, with you providing political philosophy as an example of that.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Expectations certainly are not concrete substantives--but that does not make them illusory.

That was a way of saying exactly what the introductory sentence said. It's the subject of a whole debate (and not relevant to this thread).

Quote:

i cannot accept a claim that everyone has their own personal religion, with you providing political philosophy as an example of that

Odd - did I ask you to do that? Go back to the original post that you objected to, and have a read of it again.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It is relevant to the extent that expectations based on experience are far different from expectations based on a blind faith in what is essentially a superstitious view of the cosmos and cosmic origins--and therefore, also relevant to the topic of this thread.

Quote:

Odd - did I ask you to do that? Go back to the original post that you objected to, and have a read of it again.

Not to put too fine a point on it--horseshit.

This is the post to which i objected, your post #3735337:

Quote:

. . . everyone has their own personal religion...otherwise they wouldn't every think they are right, have values, have 'morals' etc etc etc

Mind you, I class patriotism / nationalism / political ideology as religions too...

That certainly was a case of you expecting anyone reading to the post to accept a contention that everyone has their own personal religion, and that you include political ideology in that category.

It is you who needs to read that post again. Do you think the people who read here are stupid?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

He doesn't say anything in the quoted post about "expecting" you to accept it much less asking you to. What a great deal of projection you base your "horseshit" assertion on.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It will not change that religion has the significant distinction from other forms of expectation that it is based on blind faith, and not on experience.

that'd be part of your belief system, wouldn't it

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

The matter of expectati0ns was a separate issue, and i'm not surprised that you didn't read closely enough to understand that--after all, it seems you were just looking for yet again something to bitch at me about.

What i wrote was: " . . . i cannot accept a claim that everyone has their own personal religion, with you providing political philosophy as an example of that." Vikorr then said that he hadn't "asked" me to do that. But given that he was making such a claim, it is implicit that anyone reading the claim must either accept or reject it. So, i called "horseshit" because he denied making a claim which he patently did make.

Your standards in this a very low, RG--which these days, doesn't surprise me.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

No, it wouldn't. I know, to the extent that anyone can know anything, that belief in a deity is based on blind faith (unless and until someone can prove the existence of their deity), whereas it is possible to believe something based upon experience, either one's own, or the historical record. Expectations of the variety differ significantly from blind faith.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The matter of expectati0ns was a separate issue, and i'm not surprised that you didn't read closely enough to understand that--after all, it seems you were just looking for yet again something to bitch at me about.

Sure, you are this really nice guy and the people who criticize you are just trying to bring you down. Alternately, if you act like an obnoxious boor you'll often get treated like one.

Quote:

What i wrote was: " . . . i cannot accept a claim that everyone has their own personal religion, with you providing political philosophy as an example of that." Vikorr then said that he hadn't "asked" me to do that. But given that he was making such a claim, it is implicit that anyone reading the claim must either accept or reject it. So, i called "horseshit" because he denied making a claim which he patently did make.

Being argumentative is your only stock and store. Right after his wordplay was disputed he said: "however, you are welcome to stick to your definition so that it makes sense to you, and I'll stick with mine." He didn't say he made no such claim, he said he never asked you to "accept" it.

Of course, an obnoxious boor would insist that he was asking you to "accept" his point of view merely for expressing it and persist in arguing as much. But it's plain as day that he didn't care if you "accepted" or "rejected" it and clearer still that he never asked you to.

So when you quote him as if that disproves this claim it only goes to show how blindly argumentative you are willing to be.

Quote:

Your standards in this a very low, RG--which these days, doesn't surprise me.

"These days" I just treat you the way you are so happy to do to others. If you feel the standard is poor that is irony that makes it all worthwhile.

0 Replies

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Kadichaman coming. gonna take your kidney fat. poor fella you!

Who you saying that feather foot gonna get?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Robert Gentel spotted it - though we phrase things differently.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

By the way, I did find the following amusing :

vikorr wrote:

however, you are welcome to stick to your definition so that it makes sense to you, and I'll stick with mine....

Also, there isn't a word in the English language for all concepts, or all nuances of concepts, so some words just have to make do. I'm happy with my version of that one word for the concept I wish to convey (some people understand, while others wish to nitpick definitions, and that's okay ....

Odd - did I ask you to do that? Go back to the original post that you objected to, and have a read of it again.... (this last quote included because you still contended this matter after this - re below)

Setanta wrote:

That certainly was a case of you expecting anyone reading to the post to accept a contention that everyone has their own personal religion, and that you include political ideology in that category.

Setanta wrote:

But the religious believer takes a great deal on faith, and accepts it without any evidence

Given what I said on a couple of occasions...and holding to your last reply to me...would it be fair to say in relation to your belief of my intention (quoted above) that "you took your belief on faith, and accepted it without any evidence "?

0 Replies

No, it would not be fair to say that. You made a claim, posted on a public forum, where other people habitually comment on such matters, and where, in fact, it is anticipated that others will comment. Do you now contend that you made your claim about everyone having their own personal religion, and in course of your remarks, including political philosophy, but that you neither expected that people would agree or disagree? That you had on expectation in the matter at all?

If that is the case, i can only assure you that you are wonderously naive. And i don't believe that is so. So i do consider that it was your intention that people accept your claim, or that they reject it. Are you now contending that no one has a right to reject your claim, or at the least to comment to that effect if they do so?

The only thing RG has right is that he mostly spells his words correctly, otherwise, he gets almost nothing right these days, at least not when he replies to me, whether or not i have addressed him. Perhaps you do find me boorish, but it is idiotic to claim that i have bullied you. I believe it is correct to say that that is impossible in such a virtual venue.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

No, it would not be fair to say that. You made a claim, posted on a public forum, where other people habitually comment on such matters, and where, in fact, it is anticipated that others will comment.

No problem so far " you initial comment was fair. It is the posts that follow, and the beliefs they show, that I was referring to.

Quote:

...That you had on expectation in the matter at all?

Ahh...you completely avoided the question, which was quoted and highlighted / underlined, so that you couldn't miss it. It is plain as day that you believed that I expected you to accept my proposition - while it's plain as day there is plenty of evidence to the contrary (that I couldn't care less if you accepted it or not), including those two quotes I mentioned, and my mention numerous times of how we do not have words for every concept, so some words just have to make do, so there is little point trying to convince me to use another word.

In the face of actual evidence to the contrary of your ongoing belief (that my expectation was that you accept my concept)...I can only say that religion hardly has a blinder adherence to any of it's beliefs.

Quote:

The only thing RG has right is that he mostly spells his words correctly, otherwise, he gets almost nothing right these days, at least not when he replies to me, whether or not i have addressed him.

Then you are blind to the obvious. He spotted how little I worried that you disagreed. Some things are worth debating - the topic wasn't (to me), nor was changing how I phrase the concept...but what you had to say was interesting and understandable enough that I thought I'd explain how I look at things (not in relation to the topic - but in relation to the concept that we as people don't have to have concrete beliefs, nor worry too much that others disagree with them - concepts don't always translate well in any language, and are often perceived differently, so why worry overly about attempting to explain something someone vehemantly disagrees with? It makes sense to me, but I don't feel any need for it to make sense to you, nor for you to agree with it)

Now I have no idea if I explained that particularly well, but perhaps you get the gist.

0 Replies

Australian Animals, dogs, humans, and creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know