...why almost every single debate on this forum has to do with the Christian version of God ?

Why aren't the various derivatives of Hinduism ever debated ?

I have never witnessed someone vehemently criticizing Buddhism or Shamanism. These are not a threat to a person's lifestyle, and they produce very little (if any) conviction to consider them as an option in people's lives. (ok, I will limit that statement to include only western lifestyles, since that is all I am really accustomed to.)

Yes, my questions are laced with obvious answers that most of you will scoff at, but the point is nonetheless effectively driven home.

I guess this isn't really a debate topic, so it will probably be closed before any of you respond, but I think it is important to point out that people have always hated what they feared, throughout the history of man.

Hate runs rampant among the threads on MGCBTSOOYG, and it is almost always directed at Christianity and its version of God.

If it weren't important, or if it were as ridiculous an idea as athiest's would have you believe, I doubt it would be such a common topic (or so passionately defended or opposed).

Just an observation.

Concidering Christianity is the domanant religion in english speaking countries it is not that suprising that it comes up alot. If the world had a common language and the internet was avalible everywhere the debate would be alot more varied and interesting.

I've noticed the same thing Digi.

But, like the above poster said, it's nothing surprising.

#1. Most kids here are from the western world, where christianity dominates; thusly they feel the need to rebel from it.

#2. None of them are familiar enough with eastern thoughts like Hinduism or Buddhism to even begin to form an argument against them. They also have no one to insult or attack or shock by criticizing these faiths.

Digital_Savior:

My guess would be that most Totse'ans are teenage kids that are simply discovering the capacity of language to articulate a knee-jerk angst-fueled response to any sense of legitimate authority, divine or otherwise.

I find myself rushing to Christianity's aid in arguments such as those you've indicated - not necessarily because I have any respect for Christianity, but because the opposition to Christianity in many of these arguments is mindless, immature drivel bent at ducking ethical repsonsibility more than expressing honest existential concerns.

Tribe, I agree, and of course, I thought of those points.

But you should consider that most people who claim to be Christian don't know enough about it to have made an educated decision about it, either way.

But let's look at the statistics (The adherent counts presented in the list below are estimates of the number of people who have at least a minimal level of self-identification as adherents of the religion. Levels of participation vary within all groups):

Christianity: 2 billion

Islam: 1.3 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million

Buddhism: 360 million

Chinese traditional religion: 225 million

Primal-indigenous: 150 million

African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million

Sikhism: 23 million

Juche: 19 million

Spiritism: 14 million

Judaism: 14 million

Baha'i: 6 million

Jainism: 4 million

Shinto: 4 million

Cao Dai: 3 million

Tenrikyo: 2.4 million

Neo-Paganism: 1 million

Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

Rastafarianism: 700 thousand

Scientology: 600 thousand

Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherets.html

[This list appeared in The Christian Science Monitor as the "Top 10 Organized Religions in the World" (August 4, 1998, edition, on page B2)]

Christianity 1.9 billion

Islam 1.1 billion

Hinduism 781 million

Buddhism 324 million

Sikhism 19 million

Judaism 14 million

Baha'ism 6.1 million

Confucianism 5.3 million

Jainism 4.9 million

Shintoism 2.8 million

Are you trying to tell me that Islam doesn't have enough followers to present decent, passionate opinions on here, more than once every few months ? They have almost as many followers (reportedly) as Christianity does. Though it can be said that they may not all live here, a good portion of them do.

One thing that is misleading about these lists is the generalization of each religion. There are many sects within each, so I don't find this analysis to be particularly fair. For example, within Christianity alone there are supposedly 100's if not 1,000's of denominations (of which some do not adhere strictly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Here are just SOME of them: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/Denominations/

Ok, so you could say that this is an "American", "English" speaking website...

If you take an honest look at America, you will be forced to admit that the term "melting pot" applies to more than just race. There are so many religions here, supported and encouraged by our "freedom first" mentality. In light of this fact, it is not unreasonable to say that there should be far more debate about other religions besides Christianity. Yet it is the predominant discussion (not just here, but on several other religious debate websites, and Yahoo! Chat). It is the most dramatically opposed (what does that have to do with its popularity ?), and the most often debated.

I don't think that is a coincidence.

I think it is conscience. (but that's just me)

There are 249,000 websites that popped up when I Googled "Islamic websites in English. 284,000 for Judaism. 69,900 for Hindu. 55,000 for Buddhist.

Around 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language. http://members.tripod.com/the_english_dept/esc.html

295.4% of people who access the internet speak English. http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3 ( resources http://global-reach.biz/globstats/refs.php3 )

I think that is a large enough number to reasonably conclude that more religions would be represented and debated.

What about evolution ? Though it can be considered another "hot topic", it is usually only DEBATED between Christians and non-Christians (most of no religious beliefs; i.e. athiest).

America was founded on Capitalism...it is ingrained into our psyche's. Yet it is NOT a widely debated topic. If the popularity of something was the measure by which we could say it should be debated, then why isn't there constant arguing about sex ?

Christianity, and the idea of God, is important. People sense that. It bothers them, to one degree or another.

Anyway, I think I have made my point.

Sorry for the tangent.

Tyrant - agreed. *smiles* Nice to see you, by the way.

Statistics of the number of global adherents does nothing to support your assertion. What would, on the other hand, would be the number of posts pertaining to those other religions, created in this forum. I invite you to search and you'll see that the number of arguments against those religions is proportional to the number of arguments created about them in the first place.

It should come of no surprise that it is the most argued about, since it comprises the vast majority of the arguments created. Period.

Oh, I just have to say it.

I read as far as "assertion" (as though I am some sort of moron for considering statistics into the factoring of my comment), and one thing came to mind...

SHUT UP.

Sorry. Humanity is a sin.

Hurray for self-martyrdom!

*LMAO*

How was I being a martyr ?

I was pointing out that your response was not only typical, but pretty much unwanted.

I am sure you feel the same way about me, but I have to be honest and say I don't really care what your opinion is, and I would live a happy, fulfilling life if you didn't bother to reply again. (you had to work pretty hard to get me to this point, so I guess congrats are in order)

But you will, and I can't stop you.

So...

I just said what was on my mind.

I made no "assertion's", because that would indicate that I had no proof to support what I was saying.

I posted plenty of proof (in the form of references and statistics)...you like to ignore stuff like that, but it's still there.

Of course the statistics aren't exact.

Then again, NOTHING ever is.

*smiles*



(I also wonder what on earth you would say if they didn't make the Dictionary and the Thesaurus available to consumers in Puerto Rico)

Rust:

That wasn't her point. I think what she meant was that any time someone brings up religion in any sense of the word, no one ever says, "Dude, I hate religion; fuckin' Shiva is an asshole. Muhammed was a pussy and Buddha was just trying to keep people in line. Look at the peasants, fucking Zeus was just explaining what they couldn't understand. PS, I raped Brahma in the ass yesterday."

Even though I think it's mainly because it's the "cool" thing to do, I have to play the devils advocate. Christianity wasn't the only religion, but it was the most succesful, with Islam close behind in conversion, brutallity and exploitation of other peoples all rolled into a nice little package throughout centuries of history.

You could try and argue that was the state using religion as a tool, but the church has pretty much always gone along with it.

It's hard to seperate the good criticism of religion from the idiotic. Salaman(sp?) Rushdy, has written lots of material criticizing Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east, and has a price on his head in most of it.

DigitalSavior,



I honestly think (at least in this instance) that Rust was not argueing against your statistics. What he was referring to was your assertion that that majority of discussions are Christianity related. He was simply pointing out that the posts were proportional the the number of posters who practice each religion.

By the way, I don't believe that it would correct to assume that there should be more posters from different religions simply because 95 % of internet users speak English. I would assume that, for the most part,they would be more likely to frequent a site presented in their native language.Another point to consider would be the % of people in a religion/readily available internet access.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Rust:

That wasn't her point. I think what she meant was that any time someone brings up religion in any sense of the word, no one ever says, "Dude, I hate religion; fuckin' Shiva is an asshole. Muhammed was a pussy and Buddha was just trying to keep people in line. Look at the peasants, fucking Zeus was just explaining what they couldn't understand. PS, I raped Brahma in the ass yesterday."

I understand her point, which is why I said that the number of global adherents is irrelevant. You see, there could be 35 trillion Buddhists in the world, and only 2 million Christians and that it no way, shape or form means we must see a Buddhist majority on totse.

That's what she was arguing when, after presenting her statistics, she said:

"Are you trying to tell me that Islam doesn't have enough followers to present decent, passionate opinions on here, more than once every few months ? They have almost as many followers (reportedly) as Christianity does."

Implying that because Islam has many global adherents there must be a substatial amount on totse as well, which is false.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*LMAO*

How was I being a martyr ?

By taking my post as an attack, when it wasn't.

quote:

I made no "assertion's", because that would indicate that I had no proof to support what I was saying.

Go read the definition of assertion. It does not necessarily mean you did not provide proof to support your claim.

quote:

I posted plenty of proof (in the form of references and statistics)...you like to ignore stuff like that, but it's still there.

Yes, and like I said in the first post, those are irrelevant. There could be 370 trillion Buddhists and only 2 million Christians in the world; that does not mean there must be a Buddhist majority on totse... which is what affects what gets posted on totse...



quote:

(I also wonder what on earth you would say if they didn't make the Dictionary and the Thesaurus available to consumers in Puerto Rico)

Either my words seem "big" to you, so you erroneously assume I must be searching in a thesaurus every time I reply, thus meaning you have a very poor vocabulary; or they don't, in which case your point is moot.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

DigitalSavior,



I honestly think (at least in this instance) that Rust was not argueing against your statistics. What he was referring to was your assertion that that majority of discussions are Christianity related. He was simply pointing out that the posts were proportional the the number of posters who practice each religion.

Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have never witnessed someone vehemently criticizing Buddhism or Shamanism.

how many buddhists or shamans condemn people for believing something else?

another factor might also be the close mindedness of many christians and their extreme (in comparison to other religions) disgust for most other religions and belief systems.



example:

here we have a person who would not even read the entire post of someone who disagrees with them.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I read as far as "assertion"...

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

DigitalSavior,



I honestly think (at least in this instance) that Rust was not argueing against your statistics. What he was referring to was your assertion that that majority of discussions are Christianity related. He was simply pointing out that the posts were proportional the the number of posters who practice each religion.

By the way, I don't believe that it would correct to assume that there should be more posters from different religions simply because 95 % of internet users speak English. I would assume that, for the most part,they would be more likely to frequent a site presented in their native language.Another point to consider would be the % of people in a religion/readily available internet access.

Please read the links I posted with my response. Everything you just talked about is covered. (I wonder why I bother citing sources, when they are not used to understand my point of view)

I am not talking absolutes, here. These are simply my observations, supported by certain statistics that show the use of the internet, and how many of those that use it speak English.

I think it has also been misperceived that I am basing my entire view on this subject on Totse alone. I have been to MANY websites, with the same topic (religion), and by FAR Christianity is the most widely discussed.

As for Rust, it didn't really matter to me whether he was trying to discredit my sources. The point was that he tried to invalidate (yet again) my opinion by indicating that I am a moron (assertion's are silly things...based on no factual, supporting data. I believe I provided enough information to rule out the fact that what I was saying was merely "assertion". If they were, then you could just say the same thing for all scientist's. Is everything they report, or pass off as fact, assertion ?) to conclude what I have based on the stats I found. (as if they were the only factor !)

He also misunderstood me when he decided that the statistics alone were the decisive mechanism by which I came to my "assertions".

I simply posted them as an example, to show that it is MORE THAN LIKELY that other religions would be discussed more frequently if they were equally as important (meaning, they bothered people so much), based on the representation of several different races/nations that speak English, whether they live in the US or not.

I was not trying to pass it off as fact. They are numbers, and they are never accurate.

But in the same breath, those that would deny this obvious trend (attack/debate/discussion against Christianity) state that Christianity is the predominant religion in this world.

The statistics proved that to be true, but they also showed that other religions are almost as predominant, and that a large percentage of people accessing the internet speak English. The reasonable deduction would be that other religions would be represented on a more regular basis, if they mattered.

I am not saying the word "mattered" to mean "insignificant", because they aren't.

What I mean is the degree of attack on an individual's conscience (spiritually).

If Christ and God didn't strike a chord in the heart's of men, Christianity wouldn't be so widely debated, or spread.

I also do not believe for one second that the number of debates focused on Christianity is the same as the number of debates focused on other religions singularly.

It should not be viewed as "Christianity vs. Religions" it should be "Christianity vs. Buddhism", for that argument to work.

I don't need to do a search. I have been paying attention to this for years.

It's there, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I understand her point, which is why I said that the number of global adherents is irrelevant. You see, there could be 35 trillion Buddhists in the world, and only 2 million Christians and that it no way, shape or form means we must see a Buddhist majority on totse.

That's what she was arguing when, after presenting her statistics, she said:

"Are you trying to tell me that Islam doesn't have enough followers to present decent, passionate opinions on here, more than once every few months ? They have almost as many followers (reportedly) as Christianity does."

Implying that because Islam has many global adherents there must be a substatial amount on totse as well, which is false.



Your first paragraph, essentially, proved what I was saying.

I look at it like this: even if there were only 3 Christians on the planet, it would be the most widely discussed religion of the various flavors we have to choose from.

The actual NUMBER of adherants doesn't prove anything. I posted them to show Tribe a deeper view of what I was already saying.

My comment about Islam served to show that the NUMBERS (once again) mean nothing. Islam doesn't bother people like Christianity does, and I think this fact requires careful consideration.

I also in NO way reserved these comments for Totse alone. Every website I have ever been to that had some form of religious debate involved, focused predominantly upon Christianity.

Your perception of what I was saying is the only thing that was false.

quote:By taking my post as an attack, when it wasn't.

Oh, I’m sorry ! I guess I have no reason to believe you would try and attack me, Rust.

You once again insinuated that I was not only neglectful to my duty of providing evidence for my opinions, but that they didn’t show anything to support what I had said.

False, and false.

quote:Go read the definition of assertion. It does not necessarily mean you did not provide proof to support your claim.

Just to avoid confusion, I won’t tell you to go read it yourself. I will post it for you !

“Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion

quote:Yes, and like I said in the first post, those are irrelevant. There could be 370 trillion Buddhists and only 2 million Christians in the world; that does not mean there must be a Buddhist majority on totse... which is what affects what gets posted on totse...

No, the statistics I provided show that there are ENOUGH English speaking adherents to other religions, that it would be reasonable to conclude there would be more debates about them as well. If you can’t see that, you simply don’t want to.

quote:Either my words seem "big" to you, so you erroneously assume I must be searching in a thesaurus every time I reply, thus meaning you have a very poor vocabulary; or they don't, in which case your point is moot.

No, I have assumed (based on your Totse performance) that you don’t know as much as you pretend to, and that you go out of your way to try and prove how much more intelligent you are than everyone else.

Your words aren’t too big, they're misused, and used too often. As if you don’t have the ability to think differently, in any capacity. Everything is “moot” to you. You have decided that I consider myself a “martyr”, and never fail to point it out, in every post you write specifically for me.

It’s old…and it would be nice if you could do things a little differently now and again. I don’t see anyone else on Totse that has that problem. All I can chalk it up to is close-mindedness.

My vocabulary is spectacular. I understand every little hateful thing you say, Rust.

The fact that you don’t think I do only bears witness to the level of your ignorance when it comes to “reading” other people.



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by smashed kaleidoscope:

how many buddhists or shamans condemn people for believing something else?

another factor might also be the close mindedness of many christians and their extreme (in comparison to other religions) disgust for most other religions and belief systems.



example:

here we have a person who would not even read the entire post of someone who disagrees with them.

No.

The problem here (in your situation) is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You obviously don't know Rust, and the dynamics between he and I.

Everything that I say (to him) is an "assertion", or "moot", or "irrelevant". He can not bear to respect my opinion, simply because he does not agree with it (a gift I afford everyone else, but him now. He has earned it, believe me.)

I understand your ignorance...you weren't around when he said that ripping children limb from limb while they are still in their mother's womb was perfectly acceptable, even if it happens because of that said mother's irresponsibility.

You didn't witness the post where he called me a stupid, pretentious whore.

There are many reasons and examples for why I don't really read Rust's posts anymore.

I used to respect what he thought, though I didn't agree with it, but he has dedicated so much of his time to ridiculing those that believe in the Christian God (I am not the only one he has done it to), that I don't much care what he has to say on the matter. It is obvious he is just an angry little man, looking to vent off steam.

Please, don't offer opinions about things you don't understand.

I do, however, agree with you on the first portion of your post.

Shamans and Buddhist's don't go around condemning people...but think about that. Wouldn't you, as a decent human being, try to help others achieve "enlightenment" (in the case of Buddhism) if you thought that it was the right path, and would serve to increase the happiness of man ?

It is interesting that most religions don't try and witness to other people. It goes right along with what I was saying: these religions don't bother other people.

I also think you are "clumping" and "generalizing", which is not altogether fair.

There are several types of people that claim to be Christian, and only one of those actually follows the teachings of Christ. The rest parade and charade around, making the true religion of Christianity and its adherents look bad.

I don't go around the streets of my town, shouting in people's faces, trying to shove it down their throats. That's just wrong.

The Bible is very specific about the ways we must witness, and none of them include FORCE.

The iniquities that can be associated with Christians against the race of man in the past can, and should, be carefully studied. The imperfect nature of man is to blame for every single transgression that has occurred since the beginning of time. God is blameless.

I personally don't have an extreme disgust for anyone. Not their religion, race, tax bracket or otherwise will produce such an emotion from me.

I spend a lot of time with other non-denominational Christians, and they are the most loving, accepting, humble people I know.

I wonder what you are basing your opinions on.

If you are grouping us together with Catholicism, please refrain.

I agree that some Christians are close-minded, but they are sinning against God.

To be fair, EVERYONE is close-minded about something, so I don't think it is fair to say that this is the sole reason why people attack Christianity.

Besides, I wasn't asking for a "why". I was pointing out that the frequency and dedication opposer's of Christianity have for the religion indicate that there is something (more spiritual) going on in the background.

Thanks for responding.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Your first paragraph, essentially, proved what I was saying.

I look at it like this: even if there were only 3 Christians on the planet, it would be the most widely discussed religion of the various flavors we have to choose from.

Great. Then that's your opinion, an opinion which you have no evidence to support with.

quote:

The actual NUMBER of adherants doesn't prove anything. I posted them to show Tribe a deeper view of what I was already saying.

Great! Then I was correct in saying they did not support your assertion.

quote:

My comment about Islam served to show that the NUMBERS (once again) mean nothing. Islam doesn't bother people like Christianity does, and I think this fact requires careful consideration.

I also in NO way reserved these comments for Totse alone. Every website I have ever been to that had some form of religious debate involved, focused predominantly upon Christianity.

And this has already been countered by Tribe. Again, the high number if posts pertaining to Christianity is proportional to the number of Christians in the forum.

Your only legitimate argument, which would only be mere speculation, would be that even if the amount of Christians in the forum were the minority, then Christianity would still be argued in the majority of cases; but you have not brought any evidence to support this, thus pure speculation.

quote:

Your perception of what I was saying is the only thing that was false.

No. Since like I showed, you were implying that because of the high number of adherents to Islam, there must be a high number of posts, which is false.

quote:Oh, I’m sorry ! I guess I have no reason to believe you would try and attack me, Rust.

You once again insinuated that I was not only neglectful to my duty of providing evidence for my opinions, but that they didn’t show anything to support what I had said.



I DIDN'T insinuate anything because that is not the only definition of "assertion" had you read the definition like I asked you to, you would have known this by now. Moreover, the statistics DIDN'T support what you said.

Even if I had meant that you didn't offer any evidence, I would still be correct, because you haven't! The number of global adherents does nothing to support your argument.

quote:Just to avoid confusion, I won’t tell you to go read it yourself. I will post it for you !

“Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion

Great. Now YOU read it. And please, read the definition of OFTEN while you're at it, as it obviously eludes you. OFTEN does not mean, EVERY TIME. Get it? Now, go look for a thesaurus... go ahead... now open it... look for "assertion"... now look at its synonyms... yeah that's what I thought. Thank you.

quote:No, the statistics I provided show that there are ENOUGH English speaking adherents to other religions, that it would be reasonable to conclude there would be more debates about them as well. If you can’t see that, you simply don’t want to.

The number of English speakers only gives you the leeway to conclude that there would be more discussions in English, nothing else!

What would give you the room to conclude that there should be more discussions about Islam would be the number of adherents to Islam on totse, NOT THE WORLD. Hence, the numbers of Islamic adherents does nothing to support your case, and thus I was correct in my initial post.

quote:Your words aren’t too big, they're misused, and used too often. As if you don’t have the ability to think differently, in any capacity.

They are? The please tell me so. As I've said before, English is my second language, therefore I have no false hopes of ever speaking as well as someone who has it as his native language.

quote:Everything is “moot” to you. You have decided that I consider myself a “martyr”, and never fail to point it out, in every post you write specifically for me.

Could it be because you have a persecution complex? Every time I post, I'm attacking you, even when its obvious to others that I'm not. This very thread serves as a great example.

quote:The fact that you don’t think I do only bears witness to the level of your ignorance when it comes to “reading” other people.

More self-martyrdom! Quote me saying you didn't, please.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-25-2005).]

*lol*

I would agree with you, if you didn't exhibit the same behavior with every chat you involve yourself in (MGCBTSOOYG).

You're a brat, simply put.

You argue just to argue.

You dedicate yourself to proving others wrong, while in no way provide your own opinion or view on things.

It appears that you also believe that with everything you say, you have definitively proven your point, and therefore proven the recipient of your attention wrong. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is !

*sighs*

You have much to learn.

(Do you realize that I have spoken to several people outside of Totse that neither like you, nor respect you ? Whether that is the purpose of being here or not is irrelevant. I am saying that I am not the only one that finds you repetatively offensive, and without function.

This is not a statement that compares you to me, or anyone else. That is simply the general perception of you.

If I were you, that would bother me tremendously.)

As for my alleged persecution complex, I don't think that the reactions I have towards you which would support that idea occur with anyone else.

I don't feel attacked by anyone else, so naturally I would not react like someone who was being attacked to anyone else.

I guess because I am Christian I am not supposed to "feel" anything...but I do.

Persecution, however, is not something I have felt...EVER. A few of the mishaps in my life would warrant such a mentality, but I am simply not built like that.

I like to point out when you are being overtly hostile and unnecessary, because it seems as though you are the only one who is not noticing that you do it.

(and I wasn't attacking your use of the English language. I fully understand that it is not your first, so I would never dare hold you that responsible. What I was pointing out is that you say the same things over and over again [everyone's point except yours is moot, everyone else's opinion is irrelevant, and predominantly stupid], to several people, and it indicates that your ability to understand different people and ideas is limited. Forgive me if it sounded as though I were ridiculing your English. I wasn't. In all honesty, it's quite good, and better than most American's !)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You argue just to argue.

You dedicate yourself to proving others wrong, while in no way provide your own opinion or view on things.

It appears that you also believe that with everything you say, you have definitively proven your point, and therefore proven the recipient of your attention wrong. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is !

I like to point out when you are being overtly hostile and unnecessary, because it seems as though you are the only one who is not noticing that you do it.



Rust, I agree completely with Digi on this point. It does seem that you purposely go out of your way just to hound and ridicule Christians and their posts on this forum, in particular Digi's, instead of offering your own views.

I would like to hear some of your own opinions on the posted topics, with collaborating evidence, from time to time, instead of only seeing the confrontational side of you.

Digi- You have a thorough grasp of Christian principles and evidence, and have done a superb job of arguing and defending the faith. I commend you for that! I wish I was as articulate as you have shown yourself to be here.

[This message has been edited by cerebraldisorder (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Great. Now YOU read it. And please, read the definition of OFTEN while you're at it, as it obviously eludes you. OFTEN does not mean, EVERY TIME. Get it? Now, go look for a thesaurus... go ahead... now open it... look for "assertion"... now look at its synonyms... yeah that's what I thought. Thank you.

By the way, the definition of "Thesaurus" is as follows:

"A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms." (does it say anywhere that the Thesaurus is used to define words ??)

For me to use the Thesaurus as a means of providing more definitions of the word "assertion" is preposterous.

The definition I gave earlier is the one and only definition given in the Dictionary, which is used as "A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.".

I don't know about the rest of you, but I use the DICTIONARY to define words, and the THESAURUS to find alternative's to a particular word I am using.

You used the Thesaurus to definitively prove that there is more than one definition of the word "assertion" ?? That just makes no sense.

Again, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion PLEASE LOOK AGAIN. There is only ONE definition (other than "the act of asserting", which I do not believe describes the word, therefore does not provide an adequate definition.)

See, Rust ? I could play these stupid semantic-related word games with you all day, if I wanted to.

The only issue here is who will give up first.

It is never about right or wrong. It is about who perserveres (to you, anyway).

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-25-2005).]

Cerebral - Wow. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

I pray that God will use me as a vessel for His purpose, and nothing more. As I have said, I fail horribly DAILY, but I try my best to keep Him in mind with all things that I do and say.

I would never recommend that anyone wish to be like me, in any way, shape, or form. *laughs*

I too would like to hear Rust's own personal thoughts and feelings on things, but I am of the opinion that he can't. He is too anry at this point in his life. I've been there, and would venture to say that we all have, at some point. (I also believe that he finds safety in his position, because his personal beliefs cannot be refuted or attacked. What he is failing to understand is that he is also missing out on possible confirmation of his beliefs, not just rejection.)

I don't fault him for that. What I do fault him for is succumbing to it, and being too self-centered to see the value in other point's of view, even if he doesn't agree with them.

Also, a certain level of decency would be appreciated, and would go a long way, I think.

He has taught me one valuable lesson...to pray ceaselessly. Love your enemies, and pray for them, as you would your own child, whom you love.

It has been a hard lesson to learn. I will not hide how bothered I am by Rust at times. It goes without saying, I care about what happens to him, just as I do everyone else. He just makes it harder for me to focus on that.

Thanks for your post.

God bless !

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-25-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*lol*

I would agree with you, if you didn't exhibit the same behavior with every chat you involve yourself in (MGCBTSOOYG).

The point is, I wasn't attacking you here.

quote:You dedicate yourself to proving others wrong, while in no way provide your own opinion or view on things.

So? I don't like providing opinions.

quote:It appears that you also believe that with everything you say, you have definitively proven your point, and therefore proven the recipient of your attention wrong. If that's not arrogance, I don't know what is !

Consider it what you will. I do not consider it arrogant to hold a belief which has withstanded an argument. If the other person stops arguing, how si that my fault?

quote:(Do you realize that I have spoken to several people outside of Totse that neither like you, nor respect you ? Whether that is the purpose of being here or not is irrelevant. I am saying that I am not the only one that finds you repetatively offensive, and without function.

This is not a statement that compares you to me, or anyone else. That is simply the general perception of you.

If I were you, that would bother me tremendously.)

I really couldn't care less. I'm not on totse to make friends, I think that's painfully obvious. Why on earth would anyone be bothered by someones opinion, over the internet no less, is beyond me.

quote:As for my alleged persecution complex, I don't think that the reactions I have towards you which would support that idea occur with anyone else.

I don't feel attacked by anyone else, so naturally I would not react like someone who was being attacked to anyone else.

I guess because I am Christian I am not supposed to "feel" anything...but I do.

Persecution, however, is not something I have felt...EVER. A few of the mishaps in my life would warrant such a mentality, but I am simply not built like that.

That's the only conclusion I can reach, when I offer a reply that isn't an attack, (numerous ones in fact), replies that only attack the argument not the person and you take it as a personal vendetta.

quote:I like to point out when you are being overtly hostile and unnecessary, because it seems as though you are the only one who is not noticing that you do it.

Says the person who attacked me first in this very thread.

quote:and I wasn't attacking your use of the English language. I fully understand that it is not your first, so I would never dare hold you that responsible. What I was pointing out is that you say the same things over and over again [everyone's point except yours is moot, everyone else's opinion is irrelevant, and predominantly stupid], to several people, and it indicates that your ability to understand different people and ideas is limited

What the hell am I supposed to do when I think their point IS moot? That's like saying "False". If I beleive your statement is false, then I'll say false.

quote:Forgive me if it sounded as though I were ridiculing your English. I wasn't. In all honesty, it's quite good, and better than most American's !)

I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

By the way, the definition of "Thesaurus" is as follows:

"A book of synonyms, often including related and contrasting words and antonyms." (does it say anywhere that the Thesaurus is used to define words ??)

For me to use the Thesaurus as a means of providing more definitions of the word "assertion" is preposterous.

The definition I gave earlier is the one and only definition given in the Dictionary, which is used as "A reference book containing an alphabetical list of words, with information given for each word, usually including meaning, pronunciation, and etymology.".

I don't know about the rest of you, but I use the DICTIONARY to define words, and the THESAURUS to find alternative's to a particular word I am using.

You used the Thesaurus to definitively prove that there is more than one definition of the word "assertion" ?? That just makes no sense.



Read what I said again. Tell me, where the hell did I say you could find the definition in the Thesaurus? I'm sorry if it seemed that way, but I never said anything remotely like that.

If you read what I said once more, you'll see I even said SYNONYMS. That you should look for the SYNONYMS in the Thesaurus ("look for "assertion"... now look at its synonyms... "). Why? In the hopes that you'd see that "assertion" doesn't just mean "claiming something without evidence" as the other synonyms don't have that definition.

quote:Again, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion PLEASE LOOK AGAIN. There is only ONE definition (other than "the act of asserting", which I do not believe describes the word, therefore does not provide an adequate definition.)

Yes, and if you had READ it, you would see it uses the quantifier, "OFTEN". "Often" DOES NOT MEAN, "all the time". Hence, it does not always mean that they do so with " no support or attempt at proof". Thus, I was completely within the confines of the definition by using it to imply that you had declared/argued something, regardless of whether or not you supported it.

quote:See, Rust ? I could play these stupid semantic-related word games with you all day, if I wanted to.

I think its obvious you'd fail miserably at it.

When topics about non-Christian religions come up they usualy die quickly because not as many users have enough knowledge of them to have any kind of serious debate. Again this is because TOTSE is not a cross section of the world.

http://www.hfe.org/_old/resource/articles/earth100.htm

Why would I care what the SYNONYMS of a certain word are defined as ?

You used the word "assertion", so that is the word I defined and focused on.

The word "often" in the definition of "assertion" does nothing to change the context under which it was written, and ultimately intended.

You are incapable of not being offensive, Rust. As a matter of fact, I suspect you pride yourself on that fact.

You try to piss people off, and have NEVER been objective in your posts on MGCBTSOOYG.

So, why would I expect any different ?

The whole premise of your existence here seems to be based on the demise of everyone else's opinions.

You didn't just change gears (now I'm supposed to believe you're trying to be decent ?? You were intending to make me appear stupid, and were using words that would support your intentions).

Your usage of the word "assertion" had no positive connotations associated with it, whatsoever.

How do I know ?

Because that's who you are. That's what you do.

Time and again you have tried to pass of a lie as fact: I don't provide resources, documentation, or facts to support anything I say.

Until you prove otherwise (as I said, you could try objectivity now and again), I will continue to believe you intend to accomplish nothing else (and are incapable of doing something else. I can't imagine why I would think you purposely used the word "assertion" to indicate my neglect in providing sources, yet again !) besides ridiculing others.

Go ahead and try to pawn this off on a technicality (the word "often" does not exhonerrate you !), but you're too predictable.

What you meant is what you meant, and your intentions are not lost on ANYONE.

Oh, and I wasn't saying that you SHOULD care about what people think...I was saying that the opinion of you on this forum is pretty similar.

If we are all right, then you ought to at least change your approach.

No one wants to listen to you, and I can imagine a lot of eye-rolling when you post.

I probably receive a great deal of private judgement over my conversations/debates/arguments with you, because no one else really wants to dedicate the time, and risk the migraines that you seem to cause. They don't understand why I do.

I just can't help but feel that your exterior is simply thicker than everyone else's, and that one day you will finally concede and be "nice".

I haven't seen you agree with a single person, except when they are defending you, and you offer a pitiful "Thank You". (i.e. Truckfixr, who barely appears on this thread, yet finds the time to defend you, of all people !)

I am not asking you to agree...I am asking you to stop being an asshole.

No one thinks it's cool. No one respect's it. No one even wants to hear it.

And if you don't really care what other people think, do us all a favor and stop arguing with us.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

When topics about non-Christian religions come up they usualy die quickly because not as many users have enough knowledge of them to have any kind of serious debate. Again this is because TOTSE is not a cross section of the world.

http://www.hfe.org/_old/resource/articles/earth100.htm



But why DON'T people have more knowledge about other religions ? This is a free country, and you can believe what you wish (if you are following the argument that it is simply because most people on the internet are American, and therefore associated with Christianity).

People have just as much right to believe in Shiva as they do in Elohim.

Yet there is very little to no representation of other religions.

I don't think this observation is arguable. It's true.

Now, the reasons why I think these facts exist CAN be argued, but that hasn't happened.

Again, I must point out that I was not only referring to TOTSE.

It would be silly of you all to assume that this is the only religious debate site that I have ever been to (anmd therefore the only one I have to base an opinion on) !!

I also think it is absurd that those who do consider themselves Christians have not adequately studied other religions in order to determine which one was best for them, or which one is right (if that is achievable).

That can be likened to being colorblind. If the only color you see is purple, how can you say your favorite color is purple ? Of the infinite possibilities out there, you chose the olnly one you had experienced ! Not respectable.

I could debate other religions...granted, I do not know them AS WELL as I know Christianity, but I know a great deal. Enough to have made a solid, educated decision.

No one wants to debate me about other religions. They want to debate Christianity.

Please, deny this.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why would I care what the SYNONYMS of a certain word are defined as ?

I explained this in that same post. Please pay closer attention.

quote:

The word "often" in the definition of "assertion" does nothing to change the context under which it was written, and ultimately intended.

You don't know what the "intent" was. That's you assumption, nothing else.

By simply reading the definition, I'm well in its confines, and as such, my usage was entirely justified. Please do not blame your ignorance of the existence of the quantifier "often" in the definition of "assertion", on me.

quote:

You are incapable of not being offensive, Rust. As a matter of fact, I suspect you pride yourself on that fact.

You try to piss people off, and have NEVER been objective in your posts on MGCBTSOOYG.

So now you're prejudging me? Let's take your blanket statement as true, that I have been "offensive" in the past, that does not change the fact that I was not here.

quote:

Your usage of the word "assertion" had no positive connotations associated with it, whatsoever.

Sorry, but if anyone knows what the intent was, it would be ME, not you. And apparently, I was not the only one to see what my intenr really was.

quote:

Because that's who you are. That's what you do.

Circular logic.

quote:

Time and again you have tried to pass of a lie as fact: I don't provide resources, documentation, or facts to support anything I say.

I have? Please tell me what claims I've made that required me to post evidence.

quote:

Until you prove otherwise (as I said, you could try objectivity now and again), I will continue to believe you intend to accomplish nothing else (and are incapable of doing something else. I can't imagine why I would think you purposely used the word "assertion" to indicate my neglect in providing sources, yet again !) besides ridiculing others.

Go ahead and try to pawn this off on a technicality (the word "often" does not exhonerrate you !), but you're too predictable.

What you meant is what you meant, and your intentions are not lost on ANYONE.

Again, more self-martyrdom.

It was obvious to others that my post was not intended as an attack, but 'Oh no! It MUST be one!' http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Oh, and I wasn't saying that you SHOULD care about what people think...I was saying that the opinion of you on this forum is pretty similar.

You definitely implied it, "If I were you, that would bother me tremendously."

quote:

If we are all right, then you ought to at least change your approach.

"Right"? There is no "right". These are merely opinions. I could have the same opinions of you as you do of me.

quote:

No one wants to listen to you, and I can imagine a lot of eye-rolling when you post.

That's the beauty of ignoring people! It's easy.

quote:

I haven't seen you agree with a single person, except when they are defending you, and you offer a pitiful "Thank You". (i.e. Truckfixr, who barely appears on this thread, yet finds the time to defend you, of all people !)

Why would I post a reply, when I agree with a post? To say "Good job"! Sorry, but I don't like posting such stupid trivialities. I'm not self-conceited enough to believe that anyone gives a shit whether or not I agree with them.

The lack of me expressing my approval of something, in the form of a post, does not mean I do not agree/approve of it.

quote:

I am not asking you to agree...I am asking you to stop being an asshole.

How am I an asshole, when my post in this thread wasn't an attack? And then you expect me not to be a fucking asshole when I'm attacked when I'm not being aggressive!

quote:

And if you don't really care what other people think, do us all a favor and stop arguing with us.

I said I don't care what they thing about me. Two very different things.

P.S. How wonderful that you decided to ignore my refutations, as always.

quote:I explained this in that same post. Please pay closer attention.

You explained why I should care what the definition of the synonyms of the word “assertion” mean ?

*clears throat*



The word "often" in the definition of "assertion" does nothing to change the context under which it was written, and ultimately intended.



quote:You don't know what the "intent" was. That's you assumption, nothing else.

True. But stereotypes don’t develop without cause or reason, Rust.

I have grown to anticipate the type of response any given person will receive from you here, since you are forever the antagonist.

quote:By simply reading the definition, I'm well in its confines, and as such, my usage was entirely justified. Please do not blame your ignorance of the existence of the quantifier "often" in the definition of "assertion", on me.

Whether you are within the confines of the definition or not is not the point, and you know it. Stop trying to change the subject.

The fact of the matter is, you WERE implying that I was making a statement without backing it up. PERIOD.

Your usage of the word was therefore not justified, because I clearly provided references and statistics to support my theory (whether you agree with said theory or not).

I have no ignorance of the referenced quantifier. I have complete, absolute understanding of the kind of person you have made yourself out to be here on Totse. (I say it that way because I imagine you are much nicer, and more tolerable, in real life)

It is not ridiculous for me to assume that you were, once again, being a jerk.

quote:So now you're prejudging me? Let's take your blanket statement as true, that I have been "offensive" in the past, that does not change the fact that I was not here.

Call it what you will, but please take responsibility.

I didn’t gather my opinions about you from thin air.

I personally find it offensive to be told that I am making assertions, when I am clearly not.

I find it particularly offensive coming from you…a person who does nothing BUT pose assertions, according to the “definition”.

Can you please try and explain what an assertion can be defined as, outside of the quantifier “often” ? I am starting to think that doesn’t make sense. Either you are making statements without data to support it, or you’re not. Should be two different words, don’t you think ? (the word “you” in this sentence does not indicate a specific person)

quote:Sorry, but if anyone knows what the intent was, it would be ME, not you. And apparently, I was not the only one to see what my intenr really was.

As I said before: if you don’t want people to assume that you are a jerk, don’t be one every chance you get.

I can reasonably assume what you will say, or what you mean when you say it, based on your historical performance.

Now who sounds like a self professed martyr ?

quote:Circular logic.

No.

Anticipatory logic.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:I have? Please tell me what claims I've made that required me to post evidence.

Even I wouldn’t wish to have such abilities.

If YOU can, then hats off to ya.

(suffice it to say, of the FEW claims you have made, 90% were not supported with evidence.)

But I must digress, and say that I have not saved any posts you have made on Totse. :roll eyes:

(and YOU, apparently, are the search King. So, go for it.)

quote:Again, more self-martyrdom.

Time to break out that Thesaurus, Rust.

Synonyms are your friends, remember ?

quote:It was obvious to others that my post was not intended as an attack, but 'Oh no! It MUST be one!'

This is certainly not the worst of your posts, but the underlying current is not elusive to me.

Try being nice for at least 10 different subjects here on MGCBTSOOYG, and see if you don’t get a different reaction from me.

quote:You definitely implied it, "If I were you, that would bother me tremendously."

You can’t say what I was implying, by your own defense (read previous post).

However, you have once again misunderstood me.

What I would feel, and what you would feel, to the same situation will most assuredly be different.

When I say how I would feel about something, I am using it as an example.

That in NO WAY implies what YOU should feel.

quote:"Right"? There is no "right". These are merely opinions. I could have the same opinions of you as you do of me.

Ok. I was being lazy.

“Right” was the easiest word I could have used…so I did.

You know very well what I was saying.

And you’re “right”. *grin*

quote:That's the beauty of ignoring people! It's easy.

Listen, only God knows why, but I am still mildly interested in what you have to say. I guess it’s because I know that if you applied your intelligence to more productive lines of thinking, you’d be captivating. (in case you missed it, that was a compliment)

You don’t want to be ignored, or you wouldn’t keep shooting off your proverbial “mouth”. I am affording you the respect of NOT ignoring you.

Also, it is a bit difficult to ignore someone who is blatantly attacking you, or is purposely drawing attention to the negative.

I would love to ignore you, Rust…but that would be too easy.

If you knew me personally, you would know how impossible that is.

I would also like to point out that you could just as easily ignore us.

quote:Why would I post a reply, when I agree with a post? To say "Good job"! Sorry, but I don't like posting such stupid trivialities. I'm not self-conceited enough to believe that anyone gives a shit whether or not I agree with them.

The lack of me expressing my approval of something, in the form of a post, does not mean I do not agree/approve of it.

*LMAO* !!

You don’t have to say, “Good job !” !!! HAHAHAHA

You are seemingly conceited enough to think you are smarter than everyone else (judging by the nature of your posts), so why is it so far-fetched to think you would be conceited enough to presume we care what you think ?

I also think that the majority of your conversations are trivial…such as this conversation we are having right now.

If you think this is productive, or even remotely interesting….*chuckles*

I’m in this, too…hopefully no one else is watching !

To expound on something that you agree with does not make your post trivial, in my opinion. It gives insight to how you think, who you are, and why you have come to the conclusions that you have. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I thought that’s what Totse was all about.

Whether you agree, or disagree, people giving their opinions is the LIFE BLOOD of this website.

No ?

The tragedy that has risen from your lack of “agreeing” is that we have all come to assume what you DO agree with, based on what you disagree with. As these natural assumptions are posted, you shoot them down.

I think you enjoy people not “getting” you.

Are you nice and comfy now ?

quote:How am I an asshole, when my post in this thread wasn't an attack? And then you expect me not to be a fucking asshole when I'm attacked when I'm not being aggressive!

Claim it ‘til you’re blue in the face, kiddo. I’m not buying it…and I doubt anyone else is, either.

You have been attacking me (and others) since day I got here (I cannot vouch for time before that, but I can’t imagine you were much different). Is it not expected that eventually I will do the same in return ?

Perhaps you are hoping to ruffle my “Christian feathers”, so you can try to ridicule the effectiveness of God in my life, and invalidate His existence, once more. Who knows ? At this point, who cares ?

Believe me, I don’t want to attack you. It has just become VERY hard not to. (I’m praying about that.)

Or at least very hard not to instantly defend my position whenever you speak, since you have proven in the past that your sole purpose is to try refute every single word I say.

All I am saying is that you could be “nicer” about it.

quote:I said I don't care what they thing about me. Two very different things.

I don’t think they are different in this case, since what everyone thinks about you here directly affects how much your opinion is respected.

If your opinion is not respected, then you are essentially wasting your time.

To simplify: if you wanted to be a successful public speaker, but no one wanted to hear what you had to say (for whatever reason), you wouldn’t achieve that desired success (wouldn’t make any money, wouldn’t get your point across, etc).



quote:P.S. How wonderful that you decided to ignore my refutations, as always.

Is that the best you can come up with ?

*shakes head*

You really believe that, don’t you ?

Has it ever occurred to you that it is not as important to me as it is to you to accomplish refutation ?

Does it not seem obvious that I don’t react well to your relentless adversity ? (and that I am not the only one that reacts this way to you ?)

Get a clue.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You explained why I should care what the definition of the synonyms of the word “assertion” mean ?

*clears throat*

The word "often" in the definition of "assertion" does nothing to change the context under which it was written, and ultimately intended.

Yes. I did.

In regards to why I said you should look at the synonyms and their definitions:

"In the hopes that you'd see that "assertion" doesn't just mean "claiming something without evidence" as the other synonyms don't have that definition."

since synonyms have the property of having, "... the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language."

and are a "... word or an expression that serves as a figurative or symbolic substitute for another."

quote:

Whether you are within the confines of the definition or not is not the point, and you know it. Stop trying to change the subject.

The fact of the matter is, you WERE implying that I was making a statement without backing it up. PERIOD.

Your usage of the word was therefore not justified, because I clearly provided references and statistics to support my theory (whether you agree with said theory or not).

Please, explain to me how in the world is that a "fact"? Again, I know what I meant, not you, hence you cannot make any decisions pertaining to what I meant by "assertion", on the other hand I can. I did not mean it as an attack.

quote:As I said before: if you don’t want people to assume that you are a jerk, don’t be one every chance you get.

I can reasonably assume what you will say, or what you mean when you say it, based on your historical performance.

Now who sounds like a self professed martyr ?

Again, lets say that I have been a "jerk" in the past, (I still maintain that I have not) that still does not mean I was one here. What you could do, is assume that I was one, but given that I've explained myself, then you'd be acting immaturely, and foolishly not to accept that you were wrong in your assumption.

quote:No.

Anticipatory logic.



Cute.

quote:No.

Even I wouldn’t wish to have such abilities.

If YOU can, then hats off to ya.

(suffice it to say, of the FEW claims you have made, 90% were not supported with evidence.)

But I must digress, and say that I have not saved any posts you have made on Totse. :roll eyes:

(and YOU, apparently, are the search King. So, go for it.)



Great. So you make an un supported claim attacking me, I ask you to support the claim, and you respond with "I don't have the time".... and you don't expect me to be an asshole? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

This is certainly not the worst of your posts, but the underlying current is not elusive to me.

Try being nice for at least 10 different subjects here on MGCBTSOOYG, and see if you don’t get a different reaction from me.

Sorry, but that's impossible. I maintain I have been nice, at least in my initial posts.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You can’t say what I was implying, by your own defense (read previous post).

However, you have once again misunderstood me.

What I would feel, and what you would feel, to the same situation will most assuredly be different.

When I say how I would feel about something, I am using it as an example.

That in NO WAY implies what YOU should feel.

You are correct. I cannot know what you were implying. I can say on the other hand that it seemed you were doing so, and hence why I replied with why I didn't care before.

quote:I would also like to point out that you could just as easily ignore us.

1. Why would I?

2. Who says I'm not doing so? You see the fruition of the technique, when you don't see anything at all.

quote:You are seemingly conceited enough to think you are smarter than everyone else (judging by the nature of your posts), so why is it so far-fetched to think you would be conceited enough to presume we care what you think ?

That's your opinion. I don't think I'm smarter "than everyone else".

quote:I also think that the majority of your conversations are trivial…such as this conversation we are having right now.

If you think this is productive, or even remotely interesting….*chuckles*

I actually think it is. Not productive, but interesting. I like arguing.

quote:To expound on something that you agree with does not make your post trivial, in my opinion. It gives insight to how you think, who you are, and why you have come to the conclusions that you have. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I thought that’s what Totse was all about.

Whether you agree, or disagree, people giving their opinions is the LIFE BLOOD of this website.

Again, I don't think any one gives a shit what I think, who am I and why I have come to the conclusions I have. It's completely irrelevant.

As for totse, totse is whatever you want to make it.

quote:Claim it ‘til you’re blue in the face, kiddo. I’m not buying it…and I doubt anyone else is, either.

I'll say the same of you, the difference being at least I have someone who believes me.

quote:Or at least very hard not to instantly defend my position whenever you speak, since you have proven in the past that your sole purpose is to try refute every single word I say.

So, I mustn't refute what you say? Sorry, but if you post something I don't agree with, I'm going to reply.

quote:All I am saying is that you could be “nicer” about it.

I WAS being nice about it!

quote:I don’t think they are different in this case, since what everyone thinks about you here directly affects how much your opinion is respected.

If your opinion is not respected, then you are essentially wasting your time.

To simplify: if you wanted to be a successful public speaker, but no one wanted to hear what you had to say (for whatever reason), you wouldn’t achieve that desired success (wouldn’t make any money, wouldn’t get your point across, etc).



If they don't want to hear what I say, good for them, I really don't see the problem.

quote:

Has it ever occurred to you that it is not as important to me as it is to you to accomplish refutation ?

Irrelevant. That fact is you did ignore them. You see, unlike you, I want to continue to debate them, not ignore them. I don't want this to turn into a Soap Opera, based on your erroneous assumption of what you think I meant, but whether or not your orginal claim (happy now?) is correct or not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I also think it is absurd that those who do consider themselves Christians have not adequately studied other religions in order to determine which one was best for them, or which one is right (if that is achievable).

I would asume that most people stick with the religion they are born into for thier whole lives. Growing up knowing your religion is right and it is the only one that is right is often enough to keep people from looking into diferent ones. I think only people who have a falling out or at least some serious doubts ever seriously look into changing faiths.

The antagonistic nature of this forum makes it dificult to step outside your comfort zone. The" a closed mouth gathers no foot" philosophy prevails. I don't get off on ridicule so I keep my mouth shut unless I can back up what I say. I would like to see debates about other religion but I doubt I would be able to contribute anything meaninful to them. I can barely contribute anything meaningfull to a Chritianity debate that is not creation vs. evolution. Christianity is probably the one I know the most about. My butchering of the teachings of Buddha. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003468.html) And that is one of the few whole non-Biblical religious stories I know. If I butchered a Bible story that bad I would probably get flamed.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 01-28-2005).]

hey guys... read over this entire thread from beginning until end, and then look at the original topic again.

the answer lies somewhere within, all throughout, and no where in particular... just like real life! wow, who'da thunk??

Python - Well spoken.

I apologize for the animosity...it certainly wasn't the intent of the thread when I created it.

I am guilty of letting Rust pull me into (yet another) pointless argument.

I made an observation...it comes as no surpise to me the response that I received. I had only hoped that out of the heap of antagonism I reaped, some people would say, "Yeah, that seems likely."

The purpose of that is something that I struggle with myself: enough knowledge of other religions to be tolerant of them, while trying to present the truth (as Christianity sees it).

I don't want to say, "Hey, I detest the Nation of Islam.", especially if I don't really know why.

As an example, the word "they" is commonly used in America to describe a group of intellectual authorities on any given subject.

When speaking about astrology, the term "they" might come up in support of a statistical reference. "They" can reasonably be assumed to be NASA scientist's, though that is never fully explained. The recipient of said story nods their head dutifully, without questioning who "they" really are.

It is the same with religion...I would like to see more from OTHER religious thinkers, alive in our own time.

But maybe that is asking too much.

Thanks for your post, Python. It was very eloquent, and conveyed your point perfectly.

I appreciated your insight very much.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I am guilty of letting Rust pull me into (yet another) pointless argument.



Please explain to me how I "pulled you into" this, when you where the one who misinterpreted me, and basically accused me of attacking you, thus changing the argument?

I mean, you want me to not be an asshole, as you put it, and what you do towards that end? You post this completely false version of the events?

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-28-2005).]

I said that because no one goes 'round as well as you do, Rust.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

*laughs*

And to that, he falls silent.

Interesting.

This is like the second time I literally laughed out loud in this forum.

This first being the time I totally gwned that kid who posted a big long theory about abraham being a pothead because he talked to a burning bush. Which I replied something about Moses.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003394.html

The second time being this, seeing two of the brightest members here arguing over the definition and application of a single word.

[This message has been edited by aTribeCalledSean (edited 01-30-2005).]

quote:As I have said, I fail horribly DAILY,

yep

don't we all?



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 01-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*laughs*

And to that, he falls silent.

Interesting.

You want to see what I was going to post, and then decided against?

Here:

Note to self, when accused of attacking someone, act nonchalant, and post a "witty" retort.

Wow...you really DO pay attention to how you respond to others.

I was beginning to think it was something you were born with, and did not notice.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Cute. Are you done?

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

... seeing two of the brightest members here arguing over the definition and application of a single word.



True, so i guess they ain't really that bright; in my opinion of course.

The fact that we argue makes us not intelligent ? Hmmm...that speaks volumes for your level of understanding.

You have no idea why we do what we do, so I don't think your opinion is educated enough to hold any merit.

Participate something worthwhile, won't you ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fact that we argue makes us not intelligent ? Hmmm...that speaks volumes for your level of understanding.

You have no idea why we do what we do, so I don't think your opinion is educated enough to hold any merit.

Participate something worthwhile, won't you ?

Ok, im the dumbest person ever, umm happy?

F**k you Digital_Savior. I never stated that your not intelligent; and you still insult me? Wtf is wrong with you? Furthermore, I dont think an intelligent person would jugde someone from one statment like you just did with me. So f**k you.

It was just a word. You may not have communicated it in a way that his brain could understand it the same way you perceive it. To me, arguing over it was not the brightest thing to do.



[This message has been edited by Aczar (edited 01-31-2005).]

so digital, what's your opinion now, regarding your initial assertion - http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) - question? has it changed?

Remember, everyone is, has been, or will be your mother. Treat them as such. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

(In other words, cool it!)

quote:Originally posted by Aczar:

Ok, im the dumbest person ever, umm happy?

F**k you Digital_Savior. I never stated that your not intelligent; and you still insult me? Wtf is wrong with you? Furthermore, I dont think an intelligent person would jugde someone from one statment like you just did with me. So f**k you.

It was just a word. You may not have communicated it in a way that his brain could understand it the same way you perceive it. To me, arguing over it was not the brightest thing to do.





You basically said we were stupid because we were having an argument.

I think I had every right to take offense to that, since you don't know me, or Rust, or why we argue to the extent that we do.

That's all I was saying.

Obviously, offending you the way you did me is not the appropriate reaction...so...

I apologize.

Think what you want...I actually don't really care, and can't justify why I reacted that way, in hindsight.

Sorry.

True, Soc.

I lost it in here...Rust has that affect on me.

Gotta nip that crap in the bud.

Forgive me, everyone.

This thread totally went the wrong direction.

EIL - I know you're giving me crap, but honestly it's been too long since I last read this thread to know with any certainty how I should react to your joke. *lol*

I get the "assertion" jab, but...

The rest eludes me.

Dang, I am tired.

Somebody tell me to go to bed.

the only joke was the 'assertion' one... other than that, i was genuinely curious if your opinion had changed. you started this thread with a question and expressed your opinion on it... i'm assuming you did that to see what others think. so my question was - have the responses in this thread changed your opinion at all?

You raise a good point, Digitial_Savior, though I think you draw an unsound conclusion.

Just because christianity is the subject of the majority of debates on this forum doesnt meant that its important, or that its not rediculous. It could be unimportant and rediculous and people simply debate it because they dont know any better, or they hate it because it is unimportant and rediculous and yet is still advocated as the one true religion in the western world.

It could be indicative that the majority of people on the net believe in christianity for one reason or another, whether it be forced on them or they choose it. Though this is a causal explanation, and I think you are looking for more of a justification.

It could be because aside from islam (to my knowledge) christianity is the most aggressive religion in saying "believe or go to hell". That tends to induce a knee-jerk response of "get fucked" from any strong willed person, and a "ok" response from any weak willed one, setting up ideal conditions for a debate, its aggressiveness compared to other religions (aside from islam like I said) making sure that not many other people actually know enough, or care enough to debate other things.

The point? Find some more observations to back up your conclusion before you conclude it. The original observation though certainly seems to be correct.

DS, your bickering with Rust amuses me. Some advice:

-read

-take a mental step back

-if his arguments are worth disproving (they make valid points) then disprove them (or try)

-if not, proceed to point and laugh (responding is not necessary)

-lather, rinse, and repeat (always repeat)

As it stands though, <points> I laugh at you both for it.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

thusly they feel the need to rebel from it.

im sure some do, but assuming most people who are "against" christianity are simpley rebeling is just retarded.

i dont need ot "rebel" against anything. chrisitanity is simpley ludacris. the bible is taken litterely word-for-word. i would have no problem with it whatsoever if it wasnt this way. its rediculous what some people blindly believe..

to believe in the bible, word-for-word, you have to say that certin aspects of science are flat out wrong and you ignore the evidence and basicly close your eyes and scream "NO ITS NOT!".

christianity has many good lessons to teach, but their view of things is wrong and sadly most christians ive met are arrogant jackasses who are the first ones to gossip and judge everyone simpley because they believe they are all "high and mighty".

edit: many typos. i probably didnt fix them all..

[This message has been edited by Clifford the Big Red Bong (edited 02-12-2005).]

I don't feel a need to rebel against the concept of Santa Claus. Why should it be any different with Jesus?

The difference is "believe in me or go to hell - literally" vs "believe in me and you get presents; dont believe in me and you might still get presents anyway!".