1
   

They don't hate us, they love their God

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 08:19 am
I have to say, on a personal basis, I think setanta and snood are great guys. In a discussion such as this, I can side with setanta without altering my opinion of snood. Its just that, in the logic of the discussion at hand, setanta is the more consistent with facts and logic, often being the only bearer of same.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 08:23 am
I never liked you, edgar.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 08:32 am
ditto
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 08:42 am
Don't make no difference who ya are. The coffee's always hot at my place.

Don't swear in front of the grandkids, though, OK?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 09:11 am
eltejano wrote:
I don't think anyone expects flattery, Francis, but common civility isn't too much to ask. I have always been under the impression that the whole point of any dialogue is to persuade the other fellow that he is wrong and you are right. Insulting people doesn't seem to be conducive to that end.-Jack

Bear in mind that some of us have known each other a long long time on these boards. And in many cases we've had the same conversations over and over again. A lot of the subjects being discussed are not new, and there are subtle references to historic exchanges.

When I first joined the boards my choice of words was frequently less pointed. As a newcomer to the boards, in some cases it's like you are stepping into family squabbles.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 12:25 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is hardly a problem of mine if you take personal offense to being told you've said a stupid thing on those occasions upon which you say stupid things. I don't recall anyone pulling punches with me in that manner.

It is one thing to criticize what someone says but your remarks reflect a mean-spiritedness and contempt for those who express views opposed to yours. You seem to have convinced a small group of disciples here that you are just calling people on their bullshit. In fact, what you have done is to create a hostile environment where many potential contributors are probably reluctant to post. It is absurd that personal experience is not a valid topic for discussion on a spirituality and religion forum, or that if anyone is so bold as to discuss their experience, they should not be allowed to assign it any significance or meaning. That is precisely what Setanta's attack against me has been. If only empirical evidence and logic is allowed, spirituality is reduced to a discussion of the natural world, or an argument over the shortcomings of various belief systems. We would not be discussing spirituality. Spirituality is an exploration of the subjective, intuitive, psychic realm. Spirituality is about the transformation of human consciousness, not about empirical knowledge of the world. There is no way to talk about real spirituality without reporting personal subjective experiences and interpreting the significance of those experiences. If you remain stuck in a rigid ideology, or mental positions, you deny the possibility of alternative interpretations of reality. Spirituality has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with your state of consciousness.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 12:36 pm
I haven't had an argument with Setanta since I stopped responding to him. God, I miss that ole teddybear.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 12:46 pm
You miss him so much, you don't talk to him?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 12:53 pm
well i just want to say...

dinners ready

bye for now
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 01:46 pm
IFeelFree wrote:
It is one thing to criticize what someone says but your remarks reflect a mean-spiritedness and contempt for those who express views opposed to yours.


You know, i only hear this sort of thing from religionists such as you who are angry that i attack what they believe. If you persist in posting drivel, despite having had it pointed out to you that it is drivel, don't be surprised is i soon begin to refer to it as drivel. I suspect you consider it mean-spirited because you have the same attitude as so many religionists--that what you believe ought to be according special respect because it entails articles of faith.

Quote:
You seem to have convinced a small group of disciples here that you are just calling people on their bullshit. In fact, what you have done is to create a hostile environment where many potential contributors are probably reluctant to post.


I have no "disciples," and if you truly believe that, then you really don't know this site very well. It is likely that there is not a single member at this site with whom i have not disagreed at one time or another. How sharp the disagreement will be is a function of whether or not i hold the ideas expressed by the member in contempt, and to what extent. In fact, there are very few people here whose expressed opinions in hold in contempt. There are tens of thousands of registered members, and i know literally hundreds of them, many for longer than this site has existed, and quite a few whom i have met in person. I find this sort of whining about how and what i post common among the denizens of S & R and Politics, who don't post anywhere else, and whose "life" at this site is restricted to these narrow fora. Even among those who post only in S & R or Politics, there are only a few whose opinions i hold in contempt.

Your opinions happen to fall into that category. You make claims for the validity of your experience as evidence of a "spiritual dimension." For whatever your experiences may be, they are not evidence that there is any such thing as a spiritual dimension in the cosmos--at best, they are evidence that you believe so. You persist, however, despite many people expressing to you in a variety of ways, that for whatever your experiences are, they are not evidence of a spiritual dimension. So, the more you insist that your experiences is evidence of what it patently is not evidence for, my contempt for your expressed opinions grows. If you can't deal with that, it is certainly no fault or problem of mine.

Quote:
It is absurd that personal experience is not a valid topic for discussion on a spirituality and religion forum, or that if anyone is so bold as to discuss their experience, they should not be allowed to assign it any significance or meaning.


Neither i, nor anyone else has ever told you that your experience is not a valid topic for discussion, in this forum or any other. No one tells you that you may not assign to it any significance or meaning which you wish to do. And nothing obliges me or anyone else to refrain from pointing out that what you claim about your experience is not evidence for the existence of a spiritual dimension, no matter how much you chose to whine about it.

Quote:
That is precisely what Setanta's attack against me has been. If only empirical evidence and logic is allowed, spirituality is reduced to a discussion of the natural world, or an argument over the shortcomings of various belief systems. We would not be discussing spirituality. Spirituality is an exploration of the subjective, intuitive, psychic realm. Spirituality is about the transformation of human consciousness, not about empirical knowledge of the world. There is no way to talk about real spirituality without reporting personal subjective experiences and interpreting the significance of those experiences. If you remain stuck in a rigid ideology, or mental positions, you deny the possibility of alternative interpretations of reality. Spirituality has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with your state of consciousness.


You are hilarious. You make is sound as though i have some sort of control, and i'm preventing you from bringing the light of true enlightenment to the benighted members here.

Nothing stops you from discussing whatever you want. And nothing obliges me to refrain from pointing out that i consider it codswallop when you make claims for your experiences which you cannot support.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 02:02 pm
Codswallop?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 02:06 pm
The first etymology claims that the word derives from cods, an Anglo-Saxon term for testicles, combined with another word of Anglo-Saxon origin, wallop, meaning to scold or chastise (note that this wallop is not the same as the word wallop, meaning "hit"). It could be observed that if cod is the same as "testicles" and wallop is the same as "hit," codswallop could be very similar to the American colloquial ball-busting, which means "to put one on."
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 02:35 pm
thenk yew so veddy mash
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 03:10 pm
IFeelFree wrote:
Setanta wrote:
It is hardly a problem of mine if you take personal offense to being told you've said a stupid thing on those occasions upon which you say stupid things. I don't recall anyone pulling punches with me in that manner.

It is one thing to criticize what someone says but your remarks reflect a mean-spiritedness and contempt for those who express views opposed to yours. You seem to have convinced a small group of disciples here that you are just calling people on their bullshit. In fact, what you have done is to create a hostile environment where many potential contributors are probably reluctant to post. It is absurd that personal experience is not a valid topic for discussion on a spirituality and religion forum, or that if anyone is so bold as to discuss their experience, they should not be allowed to assign it any significance or meaning. That is precisely what Setanta's attack against me has been. If only empirical evidence and logic is allowed, spirituality is reduced to a discussion of the natural world, or an argument over the shortcomings of various belief systems. We would not be discussing spirituality. Spirituality is an exploration of the subjective, intuitive, psychic realm. Spirituality is about the transformation of human consciousness, not about empirical knowledge of the world. There is no way to talk about real spirituality without reporting personal subjective experiences and interpreting the significance of those experiences. If you remain stuck in a rigid ideology, or mental positions, you deny the possibility of alternative interpretations of reality. Spirituality has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with your state of consciousness.


It is my suggestion that you begin a thread on subjective experiences, and lay out the groundwork beforehand that no empiricism and logic are welcome. Perhaps in this way you might escape the words of a setanta, although anyone may participate on any thread. This particular thread was never intended to mollycoddle such notions.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 03:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
You make claims for the validity of your experience as evidence of a "spiritual dimension." For whatever your experiences may be, they are not evidence that there is any such thing as a spiritual dimension in the cosmos--at best, they are evidence that you believe so. You persist, however, despite many people expressing to you in a variety of ways, that for whatever your experiences are, they are not evidence of a spiritual dimension. So, the more you insist that your experiences is evidence of what it patently is not evidence for, my contempt for your expressed opinions grows.

These statements reflect a basic misunderstanding on your part. Personal spiritual experience is the primary basis we have for knowing the spiritual dimension. Without internal spiritual experiences, we are left with belief systems, and reliance on external authority, whether the bible, Jesus, Mohamed, Krishna, a guru, etc. To suggest that personal spiritual experience is indicative of nothing in particular is, in effect, to deny the reality of the spiritual dimension. It is equivalent to reducing all spiritual teachings to belief systems and reliance on authority -- the logic of the ego. True spirituality is participatory. It is not an intellectual process. We must locate Happiness, the inherent well of Being and Bliss within.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 03:19 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
It is my suggestion that you begin a thread on subjective experiences, and lay out the groundwork beforehand that no empiricism and logic are welcome. Perhaps in this way you might escape the words of a setanta, although anyone may participate on any thread. This particular thread was never intended to mollycoddle such notions.

I'll mollycoddle as much codswallop as I want!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 03:23 pm
And you wonder why you are getting so much grief.
0 Replies
 
IFeelFree
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 03:36 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
And you wonder why you are getting so much grief.

Actually, I wonder why so many apparent atheists or agnostics spend so much time on a "spirituality & religion" forum. And don't tell me its an altruistic desire to lead others to the truth. I don't buy it. I think some here just love to argue for the sake of arguing, and they derive a sense of superiority from trying to prove that theists are wrong.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 04:00 pm
IFeelFree wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
And you wonder why you are getting so much grief.

Actually, I wonder why so many apparent atheists or agnostics spend so much time on a "spirituality & religion" forum. And don't tell me its an altruistic desire to lead others to the truth. I don't buy it. I think some here just love to argue for the sake of arguing, and they derive a sense of superiority from trying to prove that theists are wrong.

Just as you derive a sense of superiority from telling people you have experienced something they haven't (oh, I know, we we could experience it if we tried... as though that makes any difference).

Nice try Bud, no high ground for you.
0 Replies
 
eltejano
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Jul, 2007 04:01 pm
IFF acccurately points-out:

Quote:
In fact, what you have done is to create a hostile environment where many potential contributors are probably reluctant to post.


I know nobody gives, as Setanta himself might say, a rat's ass whether I post here or not - but the truth his that this man is so mean, viscious and hypercritical that I don't believe I care to participate here any more. He hates my guts, he's "out to get me", and everything I say will be not just corrected, but ridiculed without mercy. It' feels like a classroom where you don't dare ask a question because the teacher will hold you up in front of the class as an example of stupidity.

I tried everything I could think of to establish some sort of working relationship with this man, I have repeatedly held-out olive branches but all to no avail. He has despised me since my first post! He never even gave me a chance! I asked Joe Nation my first day here if I was intruding on a private club and he, probably sincerely, assured me I was not. But it is a private club, more of gang really, presided over by an egotistical thug who maintains leadership authority over a cadre of adoring followers by slapping around people like IFF and me. He may be an intellectual giant, but he's utterly ignorant when it comes to manners or social graces.

There are some real nice people here - TKO, Joe N, Neologist, Rosborne, Mesquite - in fact, they are all nice people except for that one individual. I was not only enjoying discussing things with them, I was learning and growing intellectually too. But life's too short to put-up with a jerk like that. If it was in the workplace I'd have to tolerate his abusive ways. But this recreactional activity has ceased to be fun. He's ruining your forum and the moderator should shut him off.

I won't be back. It was fun while it lasted. Bye

Jack
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 01:00:44