Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Please don't attempt to be the author of my posts or my points. "I am not. I said that is what I inferred from that post. If that inference is incorrect, clarify. Without just saying "read post xxxxx' again. If you have been misunderstood in a post, repeatedly referring back to that post does not aid in clarification. You object to my repeated questions, but in their own apparently ineffective way they are attempts to clarify what I am trying to say, rather than referring back to a post and saying "Got it yet? No. Go back and read it again? Now? No? Go back and read it again".
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I'd appreciate answers to those questions."
See post 10949."
Yes, I read it.
It doesn't answer those questions or offer an explanation. It did; however, ask more of me. I saw that.
See post 10949."
Yes, I read it.
It doesn't answer those questions or offer an explanation. It did; however, ask more of me. I saw that.
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Please don't attempt to be the author of my posts or my points. "
I am not. I said that is what I inferred from that post. If that inference is incorrect, clarify. Without just sayi..."
Given the fact that you've inferred incorrectly for a bit, you might want to go based on what I said versus what you inferred. Inferences often, after all, come from what we expect to see instead of what is actually there.
I didn't come close to saying I "see not accepting [my] anecdotal evidence as proof as being close minded" ... or anything of the kind.
Nor do I think that. Not even close.
How will my explaining, for the sixth or eighth time, change your misunderstandings? I've already done it and you didn't even know it was there. Really openly and honestly, too. Yet, ....
And, at this point, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, someone is, in seconds, going to post telling me to get off it. That this is so boring and they'd like more scintillating conversation.
So ....
Given that I've said it all and answered it all ... a couple different ways ....
I'm going to get off it.
I am not. I said that is what I inferred from that post. If that inference is incorrect, clarify. Without just sayi..."
Given the fact that you've inferred incorrectly for a bit, you might want to go based on what I said versus what you inferred. Inferences often, after all, come from what we expect to see instead of what is actually there.
I didn't come close to saying I "see not accepting [my] anecdotal evidence as proof as being close minded" ... or anything of the kind.
Nor do I think that. Not even close.
How will my explaining, for the sixth or eighth time, change your misunderstandings? I've already done it and you didn't even know it was there. Really openly and honestly, too. Yet, ....
And, at this point, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, someone is, in seconds, going to post telling me to get off it. That this is so boring and they'd like more scintillating conversation.
So ....
Given that I've said it all and answered it all ... a couple different ways ....
I'm going to get off it.
Shannon wrote: "Given the fact that you've inferred incorrectly for a bit, you might want to go based on what I said versus what you inferred. Inferences often, after all, come from what we expect to see instead of what is actually there."Or there is just the chance, the slightest chance, that an inference is a result of an unclear description or an interpretation that whilst you didn't intend can still be read from what was said. My repeated failure to understand what you are saying might be a sign of my stupidity...or it might be a sign of the difficulty in interpreting your posts. Or more likely a combination of the two.
Shannon said: "I didn't come close to saying I "see not accepting [my] anecdotal evidence as proof as being close minded" ... or anything of the kind.
Nor do I think that. Not even close."
Well, again whether through stupidity or lack of clarity, the current discussion would suggest that you did come close to saying that, and that is why clarification was requested.
Shannon said: "How will my explaining, for the sixth or eighth time, change your misunderstandings? I've already done it and you didn't even know it was there. Really openly and honestly, too. Yet, ...."
To quote Cool Hand Luke "What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate". As a teacher, what is the numerical limit for explanation if a student fails to grasp what you are saying "openly and honestly"? Is a failure to understand what you are saying taken as (to borrow your alphabetical multiple choice options):
A) stupidity on the part of the student
B) an indication that the information is presented in an unclear way
C) willful obstinance by the student
Shannon said: "I'm going to get off it."
Your choice.
The question clearly forbids "we need them both" answers, yet they predominate, largely, it seems, because the responder is looking at them as alternative sources of moral edification and persuasion, each offsetting the other's shortcomings.
I would submit that this understanding of the issue is simply wrong. The only overlap between the two disciplines lies in their efforts to understand objective reality, at which science is clearly superior. Religion evolved in a pre-scientific "demon-haunted world," as Carl Sagan so aptly characterized it, as a means of social control, overlaid with magical and theological explanations for the objective world designed to help awe its audience into compliance.
That religious format persists to this day, causing religion to overstep its proper bounds as a means of controlling behavior.
The second error of the "we need both" argument is to assume that science has a moral agenda. To the extent that scientists assert themselves in that realm, they overstep the proper bounds of their discipline. Science should restrict itself to expanding our knowledge of the physical world, leaving to philosophers, theologians, sociologists and the individual decisions about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.
The objection that this would permit science to operate outside the moral restraints imposed by the greater society arises from a flaw in the behavior of scientists: they moralize, as it were, ex cathedra, as if their social and ethical pronouncements are determined by their scientific understanding. If science is restricted to its proper sphere of understanding how the Universe and its constituent elements operate, then 'scientific ethics' is as much an oxymoron as 'theological physics'.
In sum, give me a world illuminated by scientific understanding. I'll look elsewhere for moral edification.
cerebus wrote: "Or there is just the chance, the slightest chance"
And, therein, lies the answer.
There is a chance, the slightest chance.
That has been my point all along.
Given the fact that you didn't realize I'd answered you several times, the chance is small. When dealing with probability and statistics alone, one would think ... at some point and after reading several posts ... that you'd have noticed I was answering you ... over and over. Even if I was so unclear that you couldn't understand a thing I was saying, you'd likely have gotten some kind of gist ... at least that I was attempting an answer.
But, more to the point, my initial assertion is the fact that there's a chance.
My knowing my grandmother had died and my grandfather was going to die the day before my birthday and that my step-uncle died and that my friend's uncle died and that my cousin's baby was going to die and that my great-aunt was filled with cancer and was about to die ... all, by the way, before being told and with my telling another person(s) before notification or the death....
DOES NOT mean God exists. I'm NOT using that to prove that God exists. (I don't even think that. I don't know what it is or where it comes from, as I said ... more than once.) Might it be from God? Yes. Might it be brain function? Yes. Might it be who-the-crap knows what? Yes.
...and...
All of those things ...
DOES NOT mean you or anyone else needs to believe or consider them proof of psychic phenomena or anything else.
Yes, as I've said, I'm well aware that people would and do not see my experiences as proof of anything, including my veracity. I said, a couple of times, that people often think I'm seeking attention or lying or deluded; those people don't know me and haven't experienced my knowings. As I said, some have claimed to have similar knowings. I, myself, have been cautious and didn't really know if they were for real or not ... unless and until I saw some proof. So, yeah, even I don't take such claims as proof, as I posted.
Proof...?
Scientific proof? No. But, here's the thing ....
When I, for example, tell my mother her aunt is filled with cancer and dead already and she's told that very thing the next day ....
When I call my mother and tell her that her mother just died, when I was an hour away and not in the room, and she found out minutes later that her mother just died ....
When I'm folding laundry and double over screaming and crying for no reason other than it felt like someone reached in my chest and pulled my innards out and I called my parents to ask if they knew who died and told them someone had just died ... and ... 45 minutes later we got a call that my step-uncle just died from a heart-attack ....
When I have a dream of four babies floating and one baby being taken away ... followed by my telling my mother that I was afraid one of my cousin's quads is going to die because of my dream and ... months later ... my pregnant cousin is told something is wrong with one of the babies and they think she'll die at birth and my cousin wanted to know if I knew anything and I ... said I had to go and ran out of the room ... and my cousin said ... that answers that ... and her baby died the next week ....
When those things happen, over and over, and happen in a way in which I tell someone before anyone knows and it's later confirmed, ....
I see that as a type of proof of something.
I realize it is NOT scientific evidence. Having said that, it sure as damn hell is something. I don't know what it is or isn't. But, .... It isn't nothing.
I, of all people, am the first to say I don't know what it proves. I DO NOT know and DO NOT, as mentioned, have the answers.
My point ...
This one of the reasons I believe. I know things exist that haven't been scientifically proven. Therefore, I'm, perhaps, more open than many others to the idea that things, all sorts of things, might exist.
Hell, yes. There might just be the slightest chance.
I'm the poster child for that; though, I realize people here don't know me and can't confirm any of this. Having said that, people who have been here forever know I've not been caught in lies or playing BS games or trying to dodge people for the sake of BS or any of the rest of it. Yeah, I might be a pain in the a**, but I'm not full of crap.
I know I'm the poster child for there being the slightest chance that something that can't be scientifically proven exists.
That's why I'm open to believing.
And, ....
I offered that to suggest that people might, even a little bit, consider that there might be the slightest chance. NOT for God. That's not who I am and you know that. The slightest chance that things that aren't explained MIGHT exist.
It was a suggestion that people "dial back" the it is and it isn't definitive statements that they make and supposedly hold true for everyone on the planet. A call that, maybe, there was just the slightest chance.
Regarding the openminded part of my post .... You left out the fact that I was talking about myself. Talking about my experience. I was also talking about being more openminded about things that can't be explained. Not all things. Not everything. Things that lack explanation. The idea that, maybe, there's the slightest chance. Confusion, based on my lifelong experience, regarding how one could go through life not realizing there's the slightest chance. But, as I said, that's due to my experiences and I know others have different experiences and different beliefs.
Yeah, there's the slightest chance ....
If this was too confusing for you to understand, I don't know what else to say or how to say it.
And, therein, lies the answer.
There is a chance, the slightest chance.
That has been my point all along.
Given the fact that you didn't realize I'd answered you several times, the chance is small. When dealing with probability and statistics alone, one would think ... at some point and after reading several posts ... that you'd have noticed I was answering you ... over and over. Even if I was so unclear that you couldn't understand a thing I was saying, you'd likely have gotten some kind of gist ... at least that I was attempting an answer.
But, more to the point, my initial assertion is the fact that there's a chance.
My knowing my grandmother had died and my grandfather was going to die the day before my birthday and that my step-uncle died and that my friend's uncle died and that my cousin's baby was going to die and that my great-aunt was filled with cancer and was about to die ... all, by the way, before being told and with my telling another person(s) before notification or the death....
DOES NOT mean God exists. I'm NOT using that to prove that God exists. (I don't even think that. I don't know what it is or where it comes from, as I said ... more than once.) Might it be from God? Yes. Might it be brain function? Yes. Might it be who-the-crap knows what? Yes.
...and...
All of those things ...
DOES NOT mean you or anyone else needs to believe or consider them proof of psychic phenomena or anything else.
Yes, as I've said, I'm well aware that people would and do not see my experiences as proof of anything, including my veracity. I said, a couple of times, that people often think I'm seeking attention or lying or deluded; those people don't know me and haven't experienced my knowings. As I said, some have claimed to have similar knowings. I, myself, have been cautious and didn't really know if they were for real or not ... unless and until I saw some proof. So, yeah, even I don't take such claims as proof, as I posted.
Proof...?
Scientific proof? No. But, here's the thing ....
When I, for example, tell my mother her aunt is filled with cancer and dead already and she's told that very thing the next day ....
When I call my mother and tell her that her mother just died, when I was an hour away and not in the room, and she found out minutes later that her mother just died ....
When I'm folding laundry and double over screaming and crying for no reason other than it felt like someone reached in my chest and pulled my innards out and I called my parents to ask if they knew who died and told them someone had just died ... and ... 45 minutes later we got a call that my step-uncle just died from a heart-attack ....
When I have a dream of four babies floating and one baby being taken away ... followed by my telling my mother that I was afraid one of my cousin's quads is going to die because of my dream and ... months later ... my pregnant cousin is told something is wrong with one of the babies and they think she'll die at birth and my cousin wanted to know if I knew anything and I ... said I had to go and ran out of the room ... and my cousin said ... that answers that ... and her baby died the next week ....
When those things happen, over and over, and happen in a way in which I tell someone before anyone knows and it's later confirmed, ....
I see that as a type of proof of something.
I realize it is NOT scientific evidence. Having said that, it sure as damn hell is something. I don't know what it is or isn't. But, .... It isn't nothing.
I, of all people, am the first to say I don't know what it proves. I DO NOT know and DO NOT, as mentioned, have the answers.
My point ...
This one of the reasons I believe. I know things exist that haven't been scientifically proven. Therefore, I'm, perhaps, more open than many others to the idea that things, all sorts of things, might exist.
Hell, yes. There might just be the slightest chance.
I'm the poster child for that; though, I realize people here don't know me and can't confirm any of this. Having said that, people who have been here forever know I've not been caught in lies or playing BS games or trying to dodge people for the sake of BS or any of the rest of it. Yeah, I might be a pain in the a**, but I'm not full of crap.
I know I'm the poster child for there being the slightest chance that something that can't be scientifically proven exists.
That's why I'm open to believing.
And, ....
I offered that to suggest that people might, even a little bit, consider that there might be the slightest chance. NOT for God. That's not who I am and you know that. The slightest chance that things that aren't explained MIGHT exist.
It was a suggestion that people "dial back" the it is and it isn't definitive statements that they make and supposedly hold true for everyone on the planet. A call that, maybe, there was just the slightest chance.
Regarding the openminded part of my post .... You left out the fact that I was talking about myself. Talking about my experience. I was also talking about being more openminded about things that can't be explained. Not all things. Not everything. Things that lack explanation. The idea that, maybe, there's the slightest chance. Confusion, based on my lifelong experience, regarding how one could go through life not realizing there's the slightest chance. But, as I said, that's due to my experiences and I know others have different experiences and different beliefs.
Yeah, there's the slightest chance ....
If this was too confusing for you to understand, I don't know what else to say or how to say it.
Anthony,I've never had my point of view explained as well as you just did. Thank you.
Shannon.... Wow, just wow. You may want to consider why a lot of these conversations you enter into end up with you posting long rambling posts and others ending up confused.
I think discussing a world with out either is ridiculous , people need both we need science because we are curious people and we need religion for a moral compass and who to cry to when something horrible happens...whether you believe or not. Why can't we accept we are people of both and not one or the other...I hate it when we tear each other apart over are views...enjoy:)
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Or there is just the chance, the slightest chance"And, therein, lies the answer.
There is a chance, the slightest chance.
That has been my point all along.
Given the fact t..."
Thank you for persisting with this. I do not have an argument with any of what you say in this post.
Having said that, please allow me to clarify my position somewhat, as there is something you said in earlier posts, as well as this, that is the source of my inference that you felt it was close-minded to not accept your "knowings" as proof. It is when you say "I said, a couple of times, that people often think I'm seeking attention or lying or deluded; those people don't know me and haven't experienced my knowings." that I draw the inference that you feel any 'rejection' of your experiences as proof is at least potentially for those reasons...it is on that basis that I was trying to clarify whether you understood my position of fully accepting your description of these experiences, of not accusing you of attention seeking or delusions, but at the same time not seeing them as proof of an unexplainable 'something', and that in that I was not being (in my opinion) 'close-minded'.
And as further clarification, I am being careful to differentiate between inference (something I am doing in this case) and implication (something that you would be doing).
Anthony wrote: "The question clearly forbids "we need them both" answers, yet they predominate, largely, it seems, because the responder is looking at them as alternative sources of moral edification and persuasio..."I think I could learn some well needed succinctness and clarity from this post :)
If you haven't already read it, can I suggest (as someone else did very recently) reading Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer as he has some interesting insights on the concept of religion being explicitly created as a means of control.
Rachel wrote: "I think discussing a world with out either is ridiculous , people need both we need science because we are curious people and we need religion for a moral compass and who to cry to when something ..."Again this is the claim that without religion we have no morality. And again this raises the question: Are you moral as a result of a fear of divine retribution, or as a result of a desire for a divine reward? Neither seem particularly moral. They also imply that without religion you would feel free to live differently and to behave in an immoral way?
Morality predates religion, it is something that religions have adopted and codified (and as a result have frequently set in stone moral judgements that are no longer moral but are still 'accepted'. As an example, condoning discrimination based on sexual orientation). It is possible to live a moral life without religion or belief.
It has been asked on this thread many times, and as yet I have not seen an answer: What is it that religion uniquely provides, that which, without religion, we could not have, which is essential?
I don't think it is possible to live morally with out a divine being. I also don't think sexuality should be discussed, it is really none of my business what u do in your bedroom. I think we all have a law we live by it is govern by something a reason why those are the laws you keep...
Rachel wrote: "I don't think it is possible to live morally with out a divine being. I also don't think sexuality should be discussed, it is really none of my business what u do in your bedroom. "So as an atheist you would therefore assume I am immoral?
As for not discussing sexuality, I disagree. I think, like everything, it is open to discussion, and a quick scan through the news would indicate that many people see it as a discussable subject. One of the reasons it is a subject that should be discussed is because religion is often used as a reason why rights such as same-sex marriage should be rejected. I do not have any opinion on other people's personal beliefs, until those beliefs start impinging on civil and legal issues.
Rachel wrote: "I don't think it is possible to live morally with out a divine being. I also don't think sexuality should be discussed, it is really none of my business what u do in your bedroom. I think we all..."
Why is it, in your opinion, impossible to live morally without a divine being?
Mary wrote: "Shannon.... Wow, just wow. You may want to consider why a lot of these conversations you enter into end up with you posting long rambling posts and others ending up confused.
"
Yeah, there's the slightest chance it could be me.
Then, there's the slightest chance it could be that non-believers sometimes resist actually answering questions.
Perhaps we all should consider that.
"
Yeah, there's the slightest chance it could be me.
Then, there's the slightest chance it could be that non-believers sometimes resist actually answering questions.
Perhaps we all should consider that.
Shannon wrote: "Then, there's the slightest chance it could be that non-believers sometimes resist actually answering questions."At worst I would expect to be accused of not understanding, but not of resisting answering questions.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Shannon.... Wow, just wow. You may want to consider why a lot of these conversations you enter into end up with you posting long rambling posts and others ending up confused. "
Yeah,..."
Hahaha. Too funny Shannon. So it's all those non-believing-answer-refusers. Who knew? Wait, that's a question..I better not answer it.
cerebus wrote: "It is when you say "I said, a couple of times, that people often think I'm seeking attention or lying or deluded; those people don't know me and haven't experienced my knowings." that I draw the inference that you feel any 'rejection' of your experiences as proof is at least potentially for those reasons...it is on that basis that I was trying to clarify whether you understood my position of fully "
I'm glad, after all that and interspersed with Mary's heckling, you were able to determine why you thought I might think people were closed-minded ... despite my never having said that.
Did you, in any of the posts, catch something rather important with regard to this point?
It was the part where, twice, I said others had made similar claims. Told me they had knowings. What did I say? Both times. Posts ago and in the most recent post.
While I didn't say mean and belittling things, like, "Do you think you need meds?" ... I wondered at their veracity. I thought it was important to be cautious but openminded. I, even I, didn't believe them or accept what they said unless and until it was proven in some way. So, yes, I understood.
Did you, either time, catch that part of my post? If not, why not?
Is it really, as Mary keeps suggestion, due to some issue on my part? Metal illness or something of the like? Or, is it something else?
Do you have any idea, any, what it must feel like to be open and honest, over and over again, and to be ridiculed in the way Mary ridicules people after you or someone else refuses to take a moment to either truly consider what's being said or answer a question with the same willingness that you expect of others?
I'm glad, after all that and interspersed with Mary's heckling, you were able to determine why you thought I might think people were closed-minded ... despite my never having said that.
Did you, in any of the posts, catch something rather important with regard to this point?
It was the part where, twice, I said others had made similar claims. Told me they had knowings. What did I say? Both times. Posts ago and in the most recent post.
While I didn't say mean and belittling things, like, "Do you think you need meds?" ... I wondered at their veracity. I thought it was important to be cautious but openminded. I, even I, didn't believe them or accept what they said unless and until it was proven in some way. So, yes, I understood.
Did you, either time, catch that part of my post? If not, why not?
Is it really, as Mary keeps suggestion, due to some issue on my part? Metal illness or something of the like? Or, is it something else?
Do you have any idea, any, what it must feel like to be open and honest, over and over again, and to be ridiculed in the way Mary ridicules people after you or someone else refuses to take a moment to either truly consider what's being said or answer a question with the same willingness that you expect of others?
cerebus wrote: "At worst I would expect to be accused of not understanding, but not of resisting answering questions. "
How many times did I ask ... proof of what ... something that can't be explained or God ... before you actually answered the question?
Instead, you simply kept asking me the same question.
You know, I think that counts ... for not being willing to answer a question.
But, ultimately, if that doesn't count as not being willing to answer a question, perhaps I am deluded and everything is truly turned upside down.
How many times did I ask ... proof of what ... something that can't be explained or God ... before you actually answered the question?
Instead, you simply kept asking me the same question.
You know, I think that counts ... for not being willing to answer a question.
But, ultimately, if that doesn't count as not being willing to answer a question, perhaps I am deluded and everything is truly turned upside down.
Be careful ....
Much more and people like Rachael might not believe in the natural morality that y'all talk about.
Much more and people like Rachael might not believe in the natural morality that y'all talk about.
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "It is when you say "I said, a couple of times, that people often think I'm seeking attention or lying or deluded; those people don't know me and haven't experienced my knowings." th..."Shannon,
I'll admit you rub me the wrong way. You seem very passive aggressive in your posts. I prefer people who are more straight forward..but if you look back through your posts they are often long, rambling, and full of contradictions. People try to decipher what you mean, and then you accuse them, repeatedly, of not answering your questions. It happens over and over.
When someone answers your questions, you refuse to believe they have answered your question.
You are also, the one, who says anything about mental illness, or lying, or needing meds. You bring those words up, not anyone else's posts I have seen. It seems you are sensitive about that issue. But you are the one throwing those words out there, not anyone on this
board.
If you have a question for me, fire away. I will answer it.
Shannon wrote: "Be careful ....Much more and people like Rachael might not believe in the natural morality that y'all talk about."
??
Shannon wrote: "Be careful ....Much more and people like Rachael might not believe in the natural morality that y'all talk about."
Again this requires an inference....are you suggesting that recent discussions have been immoral or demonstrated a lack of morals?? If so, then let me for the first time say to you that you are totally wrong.
Mary wrote: "You are also, the one, who says anything about mental illness, or lying, or needing meds. You bring those words up, not anyone else's posts I have seen. It seems you are sensitive about that issue. But you are the one throwing those words out there, not anyone on this board."
You know what, Mary? You're right, in part.
I had it in my mind, all this time, that you said this to me. You didn't. It was Shanna. For some reason, I confused the two of you.
I just went back and re-read pages of posts. To prove you wrong? Honestly, no. I was beginning to question my sanity? Were you right? Had you, really and truly, not said what I remembered? Had no one said it?
Then, I found Post 10688 and the following ... posted by Shanna to me,
"It has bordered on the hysterical and obssessive, are you having some mental health issues (not being snarky)?, perhaps you might need to think about that, there is a marked degeneration of your tone."
So, you're right. You didn't say it to me. But, someone here did. It didn't begin with my making the comments.
Then, with it in my head that you said this, you started talking about voices in your head, directly after I mentioned hearing a "voice" tell me about my grandfather, and you asked when believers think they've heard from God or when they know they need meds....
I thought you were having another dig at my having mental health issues ... though not to be snarky.
That's the why of that.
I apologize for mixing you and Shanna up in my memory. You definitely didn't make that accusation, and I'm sorry.
You know what, Mary? You're right, in part.
I had it in my mind, all this time, that you said this to me. You didn't. It was Shanna. For some reason, I confused the two of you.
I just went back and re-read pages of posts. To prove you wrong? Honestly, no. I was beginning to question my sanity? Were you right? Had you, really and truly, not said what I remembered? Had no one said it?
Then, I found Post 10688 and the following ... posted by Shanna to me,
"It has bordered on the hysterical and obssessive, are you having some mental health issues (not being snarky)?, perhaps you might need to think about that, there is a marked degeneration of your tone."
So, you're right. You didn't say it to me. But, someone here did. It didn't begin with my making the comments.
Then, with it in my head that you said this, you started talking about voices in your head, directly after I mentioned hearing a "voice" tell me about my grandfather, and you asked when believers think they've heard from God or when they know they need meds....
I thought you were having another dig at my having mental health issues ... though not to be snarky.
That's the why of that.
I apologize for mixing you and Shanna up in my memory. You definitely didn't make that accusation, and I'm sorry.
Shannon wrote: "You know, I think that counts ... for not being willing to answer a question.
But, ultimately, if that doesn't count as not being willing to answer a question, perhaps I am deluded and everything is truly turned upside down. "
No.
I asked for clarification, that you felt was not necessary, but as soon as it became clear to me what you were asking, I answered. And the "woe is me" nature of comments like "But, ultimately, if that doesn't count as not being willing to answer a question, perhaps I am deluded and everything is truly turned upside down." are, or at least should be, beneath you.
For whatever reasons, I, and others, find your longer posts difficult to read and follow. That is neither a bad thing nor a good thing, it's just a thing....people have different ways of communicating their thoughts, and I have no doubt there are those who find my posts difficult to follow or understand what I'm getting at. If in requesting clarification you were able to quote particular elements from your prior responses rather than simply telling us to reread them it would help. Otherwise all we get is an increasingly irritated series of responses where you dig your heels in and become more trenchant.
Shannon wrote: "Did you, either time, catch that part of my post? If not, why not?"Because your posts can be long and read as a stream-of-conscious sequence of thoughts which some find it hard to follow and can lead to speed reading of those posts.
Shannon wrote: "Do you have any idea, any, what it must feel like to be open and honest, over and over again, and to be ridiculed in the way Mary ridicules people after you or someone else refuses to take a moment to either truly consider what's being said or answer a question with the same willingness that you expect of others? "
Yes. I would say this current discussion is an example of that for both of us.
cerebus wrote: "Again this requires an inference....are you suggesting that recent discussions have been immoral or demonstrated a lack of morals?? If so, then let me for the first time say to you that you are totally wrong. "
Mary might be right about something else. Maybe I am, sometimes at least, passive aggressive.
Let me be direct.
I plainly asked you, several times, "Proof of what? Something unexplained or God." Plainly asked you.
You never answered. Over and over, you ignored that question.
Then, you told me you didn't realize I'd even asked a question.
Next, when I tried to be less wordy and threw out the A and B option, you said you didn't know what I meant. (That might have been my fault ... in trying to be less wordy ... I might not have been clear.)
After all of that, ....
You said A.
Phew.
Then, just now, you said you didn't expect to be accused of not being willing to answer a question.
That seems disingenuous to me, given everything ... given all the times I asked the question and you didn't answer.
Honesty, I think, plays into natural morality. Coupled with Mary saying no one here had ever questioned my sanity ... and I had the "distinct" memory that "she" did ... I wondered at the level of honesty either of you was bringing to this particular question. Of course, I was wrong to think Mary was being dishonest. She hadn't made that nasty comment pages ago; Shanna had.
Mary might be right about something else. Maybe I am, sometimes at least, passive aggressive.
Let me be direct.
I plainly asked you, several times, "Proof of what? Something unexplained or God." Plainly asked you.
You never answered. Over and over, you ignored that question.
Then, you told me you didn't realize I'd even asked a question.
Next, when I tried to be less wordy and threw out the A and B option, you said you didn't know what I meant. (That might have been my fault ... in trying to be less wordy ... I might not have been clear.)
After all of that, ....
You said A.
Phew.
Then, just now, you said you didn't expect to be accused of not being willing to answer a question.
That seems disingenuous to me, given everything ... given all the times I asked the question and you didn't answer.
Honesty, I think, plays into natural morality. Coupled with Mary saying no one here had ever questioned my sanity ... and I had the "distinct" memory that "she" did ... I wondered at the level of honesty either of you was bringing to this particular question. Of course, I was wrong to think Mary was being dishonest. She hadn't made that nasty comment pages ago; Shanna had.
For the record...I wasn't being snarky or having a dig, it was an observation and a concern voiced.
Edit: Nor was it nasty though I see how you might take it that way
Shannon wrote: "Be careful ....Much more and people like Rachael might not believe in the natural morality that y'all talk about."
I notice with the "y'all" you are separating yourself from the natural morality "camp". I thought you agreed that one didn't require god or religion for morality, did I mis-remember that?
Shannon wrote: "That seems disingenuous to me, given everything ... given all the times I asked the question and you didn't answer."Your definition of plain and mine clearly differ. When you threw out the A & B option you chose to place the actual question further down the post than the answers presented. You said "Answer this" followed by two options, so taking that as the reduced to its simplest form of the question, I was left with the question being the single word "this" and the two options directly underneath. That may strike you as unreasonably pedantic, but it is neither dishonest, immoral or disingenuous on my part.
I will be uncharitable and turn the accusation of lack of morals around and say your inference that requests for clarification were underhanded attempts to avoid a question show you assuming the worst of people rather than assuming they are being honest.
Similar is your use of previous bad experiences (comments made about mental health, which I never made; comments about your "knowings" being calls for attention or delusions, which I never made) as an excuse for the tone of the postings to others.
If I am to be accused of a lack of morals as part of this discussion, I will make a similar claim of you and your automatic assumption of the worst in everyone else.
Shanna wrote: "For the record...I wasn't being snarky or having a dig, it was an observation and a concern voiced."
But with the assumption of the worst intentions from others we can infer it was taken as an attack.
Shanna wrote: "I thought you agreed that one didn't require god or religion for morality, did I mis-remember that? "I will point out that Shannon has answered this question previously, so answering again or clarification should not be expected, but a revisit of earlier postings will likely be required.
cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "For the record...I wasn't being snarky or having a dig, it was an observation and a concern voiced."
But with the assumption of the worst intentions from others we can infer it was..."
I see that.
Shannon,I address people when I am talking to them and not just mention them in a post. That's passive aggressive.
You wrote "Mary might be right about something else. Maybe I am, sometimes at least, passive aggressive."
Did you mean to be so blatantly passive aggressive in that very sentence?
We are not in high school, as many posters are on GR. These threads are usually very mild and the discussions lively. You need to develop a thicker skin. Say exactly what you mean and call BS when you see it. I think letting someone badger another poster over and over, as I feel you did with Travis and Cerebus, and not say anything would be immoral. So I said something.
You have many valid points, and good ideas. You seem very sensitive to what Shanna said. I do thinks she was genuine in her concern for you. If it was me, I would have laughed it off, asked her if she wanted to share my meds because they are quite good and moved on.
When I want someone who is going to listen to me and agree without argument, I talk to my dog. She's a great validator. But when you come on these boards, you can't take any disagreement as an insult and start assuming everyone is out to get you.
cerebus wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I thought you agreed that one didn't require god or religion for morality, did I mis-remember that? "I will point out that Shannon has answered this question previously, so answerin..."
I know she has, but her position appears to have changed on the subject. I'm almost certain of her saying that morality is not linked to religion or god, and here in this new statement she appears to distance herself from it... so for veracity's sake.
Shanna wrote: "I notice with the "y'all" you are separating yourself from the natural morality "camp". I thought you agreed that one didn't require god or religion for morality, did I mis-remember that?"
Oh, I absolutely am aware that religious people are moral and immoral, both. Non-believers are moral and immoral, both.
One thing that sets me apart, perhaps, is the fact that I've always known that to be true. Heck, back when I was a teen. A long time ago. I knew it in my gut and knew it from reading about history and observing the world around me. For me, it's not true based on scientific studies that have been done on animals that show animals are moral, therefore, there is such a thing as natural morality. I knew it before I'd ever heard mention of such studies or the phrase itself.
The other thing that sets me in a different "camp" ... perhaps ... is the fact that I argue that both groups are moral and immoral, separate and apart from religion, and try to be super honest in my posts here and don't do things like call people names. I have my issues. I'm too wordy and am sometimes, ... on a high horse .... But, I am honest, admit ... very quickly ... when I'm wrong, apologize and don't say nasty and mean things.
I, though, am a believer. You aren't.
Hence, the warning ... be careful ....
You want people to know, understand, and acknowledge the truth about morality and its not being linked to religion. And, make no mistake, moralities not being linked to religion, in and of itself at the very least, is a truth.
However, .... Some of your actions and words might give some believers an excuse not to take that truth seriously. Right? Who's calling people names? Who's not answering questions? Etc.... Me, as a believer? You, as non-believers? Like it or not, that is how some, especially people who are seriously into doctrine and being lockstep with dogma, could view this. Rightly or wrongly. Most likely, wrongly. But, I'm telling you, it would happen ... and it would cut their chances of understanding the truth.
Oh, I absolutely am aware that religious people are moral and immoral, both. Non-believers are moral and immoral, both.
One thing that sets me apart, perhaps, is the fact that I've always known that to be true. Heck, back when I was a teen. A long time ago. I knew it in my gut and knew it from reading about history and observing the world around me. For me, it's not true based on scientific studies that have been done on animals that show animals are moral, therefore, there is such a thing as natural morality. I knew it before I'd ever heard mention of such studies or the phrase itself.
The other thing that sets me in a different "camp" ... perhaps ... is the fact that I argue that both groups are moral and immoral, separate and apart from religion, and try to be super honest in my posts here and don't do things like call people names. I have my issues. I'm too wordy and am sometimes, ... on a high horse .... But, I am honest, admit ... very quickly ... when I'm wrong, apologize and don't say nasty and mean things.
I, though, am a believer. You aren't.
Hence, the warning ... be careful ....
You want people to know, understand, and acknowledge the truth about morality and its not being linked to religion. And, make no mistake, moralities not being linked to religion, in and of itself at the very least, is a truth.
However, .... Some of your actions and words might give some believers an excuse not to take that truth seriously. Right? Who's calling people names? Who's not answering questions? Etc.... Me, as a believer? You, as non-believers? Like it or not, that is how some, especially people who are seriously into doctrine and being lockstep with dogma, could view this. Rightly or wrongly. Most likely, wrongly. But, I'm telling you, it would happen ... and it would cut their chances of understanding the truth.
Shanna wrote: "I wasn't being snarky or having a dig, it was an observation and a concern voiced."
If I truly thought someone had mental health issues, I'd deal with it privately and much differently. I'd attempt to handle it in a caring way. For example, I'd write a private message and tell the person I was concerned.
I wouldn't use it in a post to the group ... as a way of attempting to prove a point.
The fact that you used it, in the middle of a post, in order to prove a point, led me to believe you were being nasty and were willing to do and say just about anything to score one for your side.
("Side" being something you brought up awhile ago ... that even if someone on your side is off base ... they are on your side ... why would you argue against them. Or something like that. That was the gist.)
If I truly thought someone had mental health issues, I'd deal with it privately and much differently. I'd attempt to handle it in a caring way. For example, I'd write a private message and tell the person I was concerned.
I wouldn't use it in a post to the group ... as a way of attempting to prove a point.
The fact that you used it, in the middle of a post, in order to prove a point, led me to believe you were being nasty and were willing to do and say just about anything to score one for your side.
("Side" being something you brought up awhile ago ... that even if someone on your side is off base ... they are on your side ... why would you argue against them. Or something like that. That was the gist.)
cerebus wrote: "Shannon wrote: "That seems disingenuous to me, given everything ... given all the times I asked the question and you didn't answer."
Your definition of plain and mine clearly differ. When you threw..."
Definitions of plain ....
The A and B post, which I admit wasn't clear, came at the end of several posts asking, plainly, for clarification. You're leaving that out.
Post 10878 opened with ...
"cerebus wrote: "Ok, fair point, it is possible that your experiences are evidence for some, it was a generalisation too far to say otherwise....What I should say, and again I mean it with no disrespect, that I assume you can see why some would not see it as sufficient evidence (but at the same time I am not assuming you thought it was or would be). "
Just to be clear, .... Evidence of what?
Evidence of something unexplained and unproven or evidence of God or Great Spirit?
Hoping you have the former in your head versus the latter ... since that's what I've been writing about.
Wanted to verify."
How is this not plain?
How could you not have seen those as questions?
Why didn't you answer to begin with ... rather than simply continue to ask ... do you not see that your anecdotes aren't proof of the supernatural ... proof that something is out there?
How many times did I need to say ... I want to answer but ... I need to know what you mean, proof of what ... God or something unexplained, before you actually answered me? I lost track at five.
Your definition of plain and mine clearly differ. When you threw..."
Definitions of plain ....
The A and B post, which I admit wasn't clear, came at the end of several posts asking, plainly, for clarification. You're leaving that out.
Post 10878 opened with ...
"cerebus wrote: "Ok, fair point, it is possible that your experiences are evidence for some, it was a generalisation too far to say otherwise....What I should say, and again I mean it with no disrespect, that I assume you can see why some would not see it as sufficient evidence (but at the same time I am not assuming you thought it was or would be). "
Just to be clear, .... Evidence of what?
Evidence of something unexplained and unproven or evidence of God or Great Spirit?
Hoping you have the former in your head versus the latter ... since that's what I've been writing about.
Wanted to verify."
How is this not plain?
How could you not have seen those as questions?
Why didn't you answer to begin with ... rather than simply continue to ask ... do you not see that your anecdotes aren't proof of the supernatural ... proof that something is out there?
How many times did I need to say ... I want to answer but ... I need to know what you mean, proof of what ... God or something unexplained, before you actually answered me? I lost track at five.
Mary wrote: "You wrote "Mary might be right about something else. Maybe I am, sometimes at least, passive aggressive."
Did you mean to be so blatantly passive aggressive in that very sentence?"
Mary....
I wasn't being passive aggressive there.
I was saying, honestly, that you might be right.
I took what you said into account, thought about it, and realized you might be right. You likely were right. I think I have, sometimes, been passive aggressive. I was really and truly saying your insight was, at least in part, accurate.
How is my admitting that you had a point and my attempting to be more direct with Cerebus being passive aggressive or jerky to you?
Did you mean to be so blatantly passive aggressive in that very sentence?"
Mary....
I wasn't being passive aggressive there.
I was saying, honestly, that you might be right.
I took what you said into account, thought about it, and realized you might be right. You likely were right. I think I have, sometimes, been passive aggressive. I was really and truly saying your insight was, at least in part, accurate.
How is my admitting that you had a point and my attempting to be more direct with Cerebus being passive aggressive or jerky to you?
cerebus wrote: "I will make a similar claim of you and your automatic assumption of the worst in everyone else. "
Tit for tat, huh?
Rock on.
Tit for tat, huh?
Rock on.
Shannon wrote: "Shanna wrote: "I notice with the "y'all" you are separating yourself from the natural morality "camp". I thought you agreed that one didn't require god or religion for morality, did I mis-remember ..."Well, what if I told you I do not think believers or non-believers have a lock on morality? You made an assumption that that's what all non-believers think. You assume this is a revelation that you alone know about?
I actually find the opposite to be true. Most non-believers ( your word) I know see humans as capable of both good and evil, as do most religious people. The difference is they credit a diety for their behavior, I just have myself to blame. I see being moral as a daily decision that people make for themselves. If I eat some of my son's french fries on the way home, I do not think :Oh the devil made me do it" Nor do I credit god when I help others. Those decisions were made by me alone.
Does morality to you mean never telling another person they are wrong, as it might hurt their feelings? I never saw any name calling on this thread. I think you are projecting your insecurities into some of these posts.
One of the hardest lessons in this world is to not take the opinions of others to seriously. Know yourself, know who you are, then what others say will not hurt you.
I'm not your mother, I was illustrating my concern and point. I was not acting on anyone's side. You public behavior was atrocious and I responded in kind. And if you honestly thought that I was going to message you privately, enabling someone I had observed to be behaving in an odd "I'm a matyr" manner, you have another thing coming, set myself up for potential accusations of harrassment or stalking no thanks, (I wasn't going validate the self imposed victimhood), transparent and public every time.One does not have to say nasty things to be nasty.
And the fact you thing it was about scoring points after pages, literally pages of badgering Travis to score your own points is just sad.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "You wrote "Mary might be right about something else. Maybe I am, sometimes at least, passive aggressive."Did you mean to be so blatantly passive aggressive in that very sentence?"
M..."
Now this is my opinion, but the constant qualification words in your sentences like "might" or "likely" or "sometimes" are very passive aggressive. You are saying, "here's what I think, unless you don't like it. In which case, here;s where I wrote that I "might" think just the opposite. It also makes what you are saying hard to follow. I, personally, prefer more straightforward language.
Mary wrote: "Does morality to you mean never telling another person they are wrong, as it might hurt their feelings? I never saw any name calling on this thread. I think you are projecting your insecurities into some of these posts. "
In answer to your question, no. Morality doesn't mean never telling another person they are wrong.
Do you not consider calling someone a "troll" to be name calling? If so, that's cool. I do consider it name calling. We can disagree on that point.
In answer to your question, no. Morality doesn't mean never telling another person they are wrong.
Do you not consider calling someone a "troll" to be name calling? If so, that's cool. I do consider it name calling. We can disagree on that point.
Mary wrote: "You assume this is a revelation that you alone know about?"
Missed this ....
No. I don't assume this is a revelation that I alone know about.
Missed this ....
No. I don't assume this is a revelation that I alone know about.
Shannon wrote: "Mary wrote: "Does morality to you mean never telling another person they are wrong, as it might hurt their feelings? I never saw any name calling on this thread. I think you are projecting your ins..."Again, thicker skin. This is not a classroom where you are in charge.This is a place where adults discuss what they think. And no I do not think someone calling someone else a troll to be terrible. I guess the question is why do you feel so hurt by it? I know I'm not a troll, so someone calling me that has no bearing on my happiness.
Shannon wrote:" However, .... Some of your actions and words might give some believers an excuse not to take that truth seriously. Right? Who's calling people names? Who's not answering questions? Etc.... Me, as a believer? You, as non-believers? Like it or not, that is how some, especially people who are seriously into doctrine and being lockstep with dogma, could view this. Rightly or wrongly. Most likely, wrongly. But, I'm telling you, it would happen ... and it would cut their chances of understanding the truth."Where did I call names?
Ah so double standards then, non-believers must be above reproach for a believer to even think they might have "some" morality... The old trope of a woman having to work twice as hard to be thought half as good, jumps to mind. While believers give themselves and other believers automatic credit for morality.
Mary wrote: "Now this is my opinion, but the constant qualification words in your sentences like "might" or "likely" or "sometimes" are very passive aggressive. "
No. I don't write "might" and "likely" and "sometimes" in order to be passive aggressive. No.
That's about something that I hold to be a key truth.
I don't have definitive answers, for myself ... sometimes ... and for all people ... ever. Hence my use of those words.
No. I don't write "might" and "likely" and "sometimes" in order to be passive aggressive. No.
That's about something that I hold to be a key truth.
I don't have definitive answers, for myself ... sometimes ... and for all people ... ever. Hence my use of those words.
Mary wrote: "I guess the question is why do you feel so hurt by it?"
I'm confused.
I wasn't called a troll, Mary. No one has ever called me a troll. So, .... I wasn't hurt by being called a troll.
I'm confused.
I wasn't called a troll, Mary. No one has ever called me a troll. So, .... I wasn't hurt by being called a troll.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
That's not what I said. Is it? You're leaving something out. And, ... it's a pretty important part of what I said.
Please don't attempt to be the author of my posts or my points.