Theist sharing is really no different from atheist sharing is it?

Sure. Just like if an atheist wanted to say something to one specific poster they should use the PM system.

Just so this post remains truthful I have to correct you on some things. I never said I was in fear of sliding back to my old ways. That's completely irrelevant but still wasn't true.

Yes, the overall consensus was just that. But what you seem to be forgetting is that almost every post by an atheist was left with this tiny little jab at me. One that took what would have been a heartfelt response and turned it into a mockery.

I think it was more like:
And I got that from:
When I first read this Hopey I thought wow, that was nice of you. And then I got to the part that I have bolded and it blew it all away.

Now Subfallens post wasn't necessarily a knock against me, just really bad advice.

So ok Hopey, maybe I should state it again:

This was the final line in your big melodramatic farewell post:

*That's* what lead me to write:

I was basically agreeing with what you wrote in your final sentence, you just don't realize it.

It must have been your reputation that hurt you Hopey.

My advice was good, even if you intend to remain religious. Your daughter cannot separate the literal imagery of religious doctrine from its actual content, which is just the emotional hand-rail it offers to your unstable self-image.

For example, believing in Hell can cause a child real misery, although for you it just a way to feel an (ironically) childish pleasure at the idea that your social/intellectual superiors will someday be the ones under the whip.

Just out of curiosity, what were the other surprises along the road of serious skepticism that you had in mind?

That was a sloppy comment, as I was conflating scientific skepticism with mystic skepticism. (The context suggests science, but I was primarily thinking of mysticism.) In particular, experiencing non-self. I am an utter novice at this skill, but have found even small successes to be very surprising.

"Surprising" is probably not the right word for scientific skepticism; maybe "counter-intuitive" is better? But a much steeper learning curve on this skill...I'm not sure if I possess it at all, so maybe it IS surprising! Hah.

I added the edit because I can remember the precise moment I lost all belief in a personal God. The surprise was very mild; it was much more a "F*** me I'm stupid...how didn't I see this before?" moment.

Just another example of why I said what I did.

You said what you did because, by explicitly pointing out our pettiness to yourself, you feel justified in ignoring us.

Yes, we're petty, but you are still dishonest and delusional to deny that we have all the evidence in the world on our petty, human side---while God has...nothing.

Edit - God is a superstition. Period. In other news, 2+2=4.

Ah, okay. I was just hoping to get a head start on my other irrational beliefs, that's all .

I don't believe there is a pre-condition for teaching kids about hell early but this could vary by family beliefs and sects.

I have a very religious friend who told me somewhere's in the NT that persuasion is also a means of conversion. Plus a lot of people/kids just perceive God as a benevolent being from the outset. (Its much better to explain God's benign attributes to children first.)

I've also never heard a child express fear about hell. Of course, its possible there are exceptions but I don't think its something they spend as much time thinking about as a non-believer thinks they do.

I think its a mistake to group all kids together and all religious teaching together.

There are many doctrines in the bible and in the world in general and parents have the option of picking the time and place of when to introduce them.

Of course, sometimes other or older children upset the apple cart.

Well, yeah, there's a lot of variance in natural empathy, so believing in hell will be a nightmarish struggle for some people, and will make other people feel more secure and even oddly triumphant. (The latter end up as Calvinists, I've noticed.)

But a child in the former group will feel much more confused by people in the latter group than he needs to. Why? Because the child will think the answer to his confusion is somehow tied up in the doctrine of Hell. And of course it's not---it's just simple psychology, people are different.

All religious doctrines (not just hell) have this effect. They abstract emotional realities into the world of doctrinal debate; therefore preventing anyone from seeing the situation clearly.

I mean, I could just go on forever about why children shouldn't be indoctrinated into moralistic religion. It's the only topic in the world I think I'm worth listening to about.

What do you mean by 'valid' and 'invalid'?

An argument's validity is unaffected by the arguer's personal characteristics. A raving lunatic can posit a logically valid argument, just as a genius can present utter twaddle. 'Perspective' is irrelevant to validity.

You have to point out the structural weaknesses of an argument to show that it is invalid. What you have said amounts to a simple Ad Hominem fallacy.

This is a whole nother ballgame.

What you're saying could apply in the natural world but my post above refers to the spiritual world described in the bible and those rules are different from the world's.

Oh, I see.







...WHAT?!

Well people get better and better at pushing each other's buttons. One of the benefits/drawbacks of the switch from a labor agrarian economy to a white collar "more time on our hands" economy.

I'll even concede many evangelical figures get better and better at manipulating this and we even have people out there sowing the "feel good doctrines" in order to reap more contributions.

That still doesn't lessen the power of the word of God. It has power even in the wrong hands, in fact, the bible specifically states that such will be the case. The truth is always the truth even in unscrupulous hands.

Also people frequently think they have to "add" something. Its our "saleman" mentality today. If they stopped and thought about it they'd know the eternal is always the eternal and there's no need to embellish it.

in after lock.........???

She requested a perma-ban this time. I wonder what her new name will be?

for once, hopey is right. philosophy discussion and religious discussion are two very definable and separable entities.

furthermore, religion does not belong in a core sciences forum. there are only sparse instances where religion and philosophy/psychology intertwine, producing intense and unresolvable debates/tardoffs that disrupt other discussions.

with that being said, when religion does get its own subforum, it will no longer be necessary to continue to post threads that do nothing but tout the validity of evolution. it will be assumed that evolution is a valid scientific theory, and therefore, any thread that serves no other purpose but to validate evolution will be interpreted as another form of religious prostheletyzing and should be immediately locked and/or moved to the religious forum.

of course, any threads initiated to discuss differring viewpoints of evolutionary theory would be acceptable, but it would be incumbant of the SMP mods to make determinations of which threads fall within these guidelines. personally, from past experience, mods of this forum have not been able to moderate in a manner that is non-partial between Theists and atheists, but with the addition of the religious forum, i think that much of the religious haranguing that goes on in SMP can be alleviated. and if mods continue to remain inpartial, nasty tardoffs will continue to reign (who the fkk knows, maybe that is what people really desire, internet tardoffs)

lastly, why the fkk hasn't the religious forum been created yet?

I am new to this forum but here is my take on the situation.

SMP = science, maths and philosophy.

Theists will always have an extremely difficult time in a forum where logic is a foundation of all subjects discussed. This is largely as a result of religious beliefs being entirely illogical. The sooner posters such as PacoPaco and BigErf have some sort of believers forum where they can blindly lead each other around in circles the better as far as the potential for continued quality discussion in SMP goes. You guys can discuss that twisted library of **** that apparently contains the word of your lord until Jesus himself returns to reward you for flying in the face of all the "dawkinites" who have been representing the devil this whole time.

The new forum should be up and running within a day or two, possibly less.

Patience please.


1/14/09 edit

I have move this thread to RGT from SMP so this discussion can continure if so desired.


-Zeno