The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Even Watterson in his rhetorical analysis was aware of this.

where did you see that? or you just wanted to use the word 'rhetorical'?

[bluefete]

Maybe this can help you some more:

[bluefete]

Even Watterson in his rhetorical analysis was aware of this.

where did you see that? or you just wanted to use the word 'rhetorical'?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Maybe this can help you some more:

so you using comics to build your argument now?

[bluefete]

Hey Duane:

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ YOU couldn't be calling me a literalist

[bluefete]

^ YOU couldn't be calling me a literalist

I knew you would get it.

[d spike]

Come, come, Bluefete... you mean to tell me that you never debated anything? You never even learned to write an argumentative essay for O' levels? How come you don't know how to form or structure an argument? You need to prove your point, not reiterate that you feel you are right...

First, I will just repeat a point I made... hopefully, this time you will read it to see what it says - instead of just thinking, "he saying he right and I wrong".

"Saying it, is not proving it. In view of you performing the former, you were asked to do the latter.
So far, you have focused on my final paragraph (which was not about the movie, but about your approach to dealing with how you approach this movie and other worldly things) and you misunderstood my point, so that doesn't count. Apart from that, your voicing your fear that Hollywood is out to besmirch God, and your opinion that the movie is evil... there is nothing else here. Where is your argument? This empty Trojan horse is not proof... "

Apart from these points, which do not form an argument, you have stated:
1. A bible quotation. If I were a muslim or a hindu, and I did not accept this as scripture, then this item would be pointless. We were discussing a movie, therefore a quote from the movie would be quite acceptable. To quote from a collection of prose... not so much. One of the production staff, who points out the sinister reasons behind their choices... yes. a centuries-dead fellah, who would have no idea what you mean by a movie... no. Furthermore, even among christians (the ones that think), a bible quotation is used to back up a point... not be a point. And in summation, you still don't realize that you didn't get the point of what I was trying to tell you. Look at it again.

2. Saying you stand by your statement doesn't add credibility to it. In itself, it is just a waste of oxygen. Saying you are right doesn't prove you are right. Get it right.

3. Your opinion about the 'Hollywood agenda' is simply that - an opinion. If you were able to submit an article in which a Hollywood producer admits to pushing his demon-worshiping faith through the medium of his movies, then that would be a moot point. So far, the only thing clear about the 'Hollywood agenda' is that they are making movies that they can sell... and that you feel they are evil.

4. Your production of a rationale. Again, saying you think you are right doesn't prove anything. A rationale is a reason. Your reason(?) is you think they are evil. So your rationale is based on feelings. That (even though it is the new trend among pseudo-intellectuals) is not the proper base for a rationale. Proof, evidence, data... that sort of thing... give it a try.

5. "kuchela & pepper" nonsense... in response to this?
"And very good responses and rebuttals were made, to which you were silent. Make good the opportunity to show that wisdom and intellect are gifts from above, and that right shines more brightly than wrong... unless, of course, you happen to be wrong."
How is THAT an answer? I won't bother repeating myself any more. This has no bearing on the formation of an argument. Please do better.

6. "Choose this day between good and evil." Yeah, real convincing argument. However, the topic on hand is...
Calvin and Hobbes, eh? That's one of my favourite cartoons. You don't get it, do you? We are here. We were sent here. (Of course, if you wish to deny this, you can...) This world was not meant to be this way, but it is now. (An interesting point is that God's permissive will allowed it, knowing that it wouldn't alter His plan, and it would probably enhance it in some way when we heal all the crap.) We are part of this world. (I am tired repeating myself - and I am tired of repeating myself because you are not looking at what I am saying. Your points clearly show your opinion, but they are not valid as arguments. To complete the point I was making, take a look at these:

What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?

I was clearly referring to getting to grips with the reality that we are set in, and the fact that we are sent here, as part of all this, and the tools we need to use, we must make from what lies around us. Forgive me for not being this clear. Can you now respond to that point?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You need to prove your point, not reiterate that you feel you are right...

that IS his point!

evolution does not exist because bluefete feels it doesn't

[bluefete]

Come, come, Bluefete... you mean to tell me that you never debated anything? You never even learned to write an argumentative essay for O' levels? How come you don't know how to form or structure an argument? You need to prove your point, not reiterate that you feel you are right...

First, I will just repeat a point I made... hopefully, this time you will read it to see what it says - instead of just thinking, "he saying he right and I wrong".

"Saying it, is not proving it. In view of you performing the former, you were asked to do the latter.
So far, you have focused on my final paragraph (which was not about the movie, but about your approach to dealing with how you approach this movie and other worldly things) and you misunderstood my point, so that doesn't count. Apart from that, your voicing your fear that Hollywood is out to besmirch God, and your opinion that the movie is evil... there is nothing else here. Where is your argument? This empty Trojan horse is not proof... "

[b]What more proof do you need? I have shown you the AVATAR argument. Turn on your cable television and watch a movie. It will not be long before an actor curses Jesus or damns God.

Apart from these points, which do not form an argument, you have stated:
1. A bible quotation. If I were a muslim or a hindu, and I did not accept this as scripture, then this item would be pointless. We were discussing a movie, therefore a quote from the movie would be quite acceptable. To quote from a collection of prose... not so much. One of the production staff, who points out the sinister reasons behind their choices... yes. a centuries-dead fellah, who would have no idea what you mean by a movie... no. Furthermore, even among christians (the ones that think), a bible quotation is used to back up a point... not be a point. And in summation, you still don't realize that you didn't get the point of what I was trying to tell you. Look at it again.

Again. Refer to above.

2. Saying you stand by your statement doesn't add credibility to it. In itself, it is just a waste of oxygen. Saying you are right doesn't prove you are right. Get it right.

3. Your opinion about the 'Hollywood agenda' is simply that - an opinion. If you were able to submit an article in which a Hollywood producer admits to pushing his demon-worshiping faith through the medium of his movies, then that would be a moot point. So far, the only thing clear about the 'Hollywood agenda' is that they are making movies that they can sell... and that you feel they are evil.

Making & selling movies are an economic aspect. Hollywood tries to cater to as wide an audience as possible. Nothing wrong with that. I do not need any Hollywood producer to overtly come out and state that there is an underlying agenda when it is quite plain to see.

Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children.

4. Your production of a rationale. Again, saying you think you are right doesn't prove anything. A rationale is a reason. Your reason(?) is you think they are evil. So your rationale is based on feelings. That (even though it is the new trend among pseudo-intellectuals) is not the proper base for a rationale. Proof, evidence, data... that sort of thing... give it a try.

5. "kuchela & pepper" nonsense... in response to this?
"And very good responses and rebuttals were made, to which you were silent. Make good the opportunity to show that wisdom and intellect are gifts from above, and that right shines more brightly than wrong... unless, of course, you happen to be wrong."
How is THAT an answer? I won't bother repeating myself any more. This has no bearing on the formation of an argument. Please do better.

6. "Choose this day between good and evil." Yeah, real convincing argument. However, the topic on hand is...
Calvin and Hobbes, eh? That's one of my favourite cartoons. You don't get it, do you? We are here. We were sent here. (Of course, if you wish to deny this, you can...) This world was not meant to be this way, but it is now. (An interesting point is that God's permissive will allowed it, knowing that it wouldn't alter His plan, and it would probably enhance it in some way when we heal all the crap.) We are part of this world. (I am tired repeating myself - and I am tired of repeating myself because you are not looking at what I am saying. Your points clearly show your opinion, but they are not valid as arguments. To complete the point I was making, take a look at these:

What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?

I was clearly referring to getting to grips with the reality that we are set in, and the fact that we are sent here, as part of all this, and the tools we need to use, we must make from what lies around us. Forgive me for not being this clear. Can you now respond to that point?

[/b]

We are all here for a purpose. Death brings an end to that purpose. Every breadth that we take moves us one step closer to fulfilling our purpose. However, many people never discover their purpose and live an existence that is incomplete.

When God created, he created in entirety. The first Man was created as a total, complete fully formed mature being. So was the first woman. So were the first trees and so on. Go read Genesis 1. Science has yet to come to terms with this fact. All the scientists can do is explain the bones. They cannot/do not want to explain where the first man came from because this does not fit in with their neat little calculations about the natural order of things.

I am still waiting on a scientific (evolutionary) explanation for the origin of the first human to walk the planet. Can you help me here?

Spike: I truly admire your intellect. It is a privilege to read your posts.

[d spike]

I have shown you the AVATAR argument.
No, you haven't... that's my point. You have yet to produce an argument... apart from that post made up of the rather inane points raised (and shot down) on the internet.

We are all here for a purpose.
Agreed.

Death brings an end to that purpose.
No, it doesn't. If you are willing to believe that our part in God's plan consists only of this life here, then the concept of 'Life in the Hereafter' is nonsense - this puts your faith on par with that of an atheist, eh?

Every breadth that we take moves us one step closer to fulfilling our purpose. However, many people never discover their purpose and live an existence that is incomplete.
Do you realize that those two sentences can be considered conflicting? If death ends the purpose...
Our purpose is to be part of a plan. Exactly what that plan is, we don't know... but we do know that loving and caring for each other plays a greater role in that plan than 'religion'.

When God created, he created in entirety. The first Man was created as a total, complete fully formed mature being. So was the first woman. So were the first trees and so on. Go read Genesis 1.
What about Genesis 2? Why is the order of production reversed?
Sorry, I guess that's besides the point... but then so is all this. Your ability to state the validity of your argument is what I wish you to work on. Stating opinions and backing it up with scriptural quotations is accepted by many as good preaching. This discussion is not preaching (forgive me if it is supposed to be... for then I have the wrong idea about this whole forum thing, and I will let you continue without interruption on my part, just let me know), this is an argument, a debate... as far as I can figure out.

Science has yet to come to terms with this fact. All the scientists can do is explain the bones. They cannot/do not want to explain where the first man came from because this does not fit in with their neat little calculations about the natural order of things.
I guess it will also make us all admit to inbreeding and incest - which would explain the incapability for progressively worsening of people's ability to think... and debate.

I am still waiting on a scientific (evolutionary) explanation for the origin of the first human to walk the planet. Can you help me here?
Sorry, wasn't there. Didn't know the guy. I'm not that old.

Spike: I truly admire your intellect. It is a privilege to read your posts.
Thank you... as my head is swollen enough as it is (but that is due more to slap and lash than ego ) I'll try not to dwell on this and won't say anything more than:
I wish your posts would reflect this.

[/b]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children

[shottayouth38]

I am living

[d spike]

You need to prove your point, not reiterate that you feel you are right...

that IS his point!

evolution does not exist because bluefete feels it doesn't

Well, if so, then debate is useless.

[16 cycles]

Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children

have you written to jim henson / sesame street directors to register your protest?

if you know its going on and do nothing about it, then you are condoning evil

do something about it fast, least hordes of children fall prey to the dark side and learn to count as a sidenote...

[bluefete]

Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children

His theories were absolutely discredited. The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[d spike]

Much like Count Dracula on Sesame Street. Evil personified and sanitized to be sold to little children

His theories were absolutely discredited. The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The quote in blue is in reference to who?
The Count on Sesame Street? (Not Count Dracula, a figment of Bram Stoker's imagination, the muppet character's name is just "the Count", a play on the verb...) His theories are supposed to be somewhat mainstream, adding one repeatedly to a number...
Freud? sheit happens to you and this affects how you view situations afterward? Makes sense to me...
Bluefete? Well, many of his theories voiced here are really hypotheses, as they can't be proven... and some of them don't even make much sense... but I never thought he was a pervert!!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

His theories were absolutely discredited. The little pervert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

discredited by whom? the same science and scientists you discredit by saying they are nut cases to dream up evolution?

[nismotrinidappa]

microwaves popcorn.....

[d spike]

check

[illumin@ti]

Its the main reason why i have seen for myself for the first time in life that there are some people that love to be sad, misinformed, misguided and willfully ignorant. Bluefete and that other guy have shown me at least if no one else how it is to ignore everything, cork yuh ears, and yap. Yap without care, thought or consideration of whats being yapped....

i pullin a chair fuh dis one,

[nismotrinidappa]

passes popcorn to nati......


we would like some answers bluefete... your thoughts on the matter.

[d spike]

I think Bluefete would like this particular argument, as Freud's "discrediting" is easily researched by clicking on Google - so expect a lot of 'cut and paste'.
In her article about the importance of unconscious thought, Kate Douglas writes: "Modern notions of the subconscious were invented by Sigmund Freud as part of his now discredited theory of psychoanalysis. These days the subconscious is on a firmer scientific footing - although many neurobiologists avoid the word 'subconscious', preferring 'non-conscious', 'pre-conscious' or 'unconscious' to describe thought processes that happen outside consciousness" (1 December 2007, p 42).

In fact, it was Freud who postulated the theory of a system of the unconscious, pre-conscious and conscious, and he was well aware of the power of the unconscious in influencing our choices and actions. It is often forgotten that Freud was no mean neuroscientist himself, author of more than 200 neuroscientific titles, which included substantial original work, including his research on aphasias.

Freud left a heritage of psychoanalytical psychotherapy that remains an important method of treatment in the UK's National Health Service.

"We appreciate that the theory of psychoanalysis has many supporters and has made an important contribution to modern psychiatry. However, Freud's theory of psychoanalysis - the idea that the unconscious mind is split into id, ego and superego, which compete for control over our thoughts and actions - has long been discredited as a scientific theory of how the mind works."
(Association of Child Psychotherapists)

[illumin@ti]

** munches popcorn **

Dappa, seriously, i think he wont like this ants nest he walk into. He put science and the validity of scientific reason and logic on blast for so long during this thread, that i doubt he'll try to use the logic of science itself to, as spike highlighted earlier, dispute science...

My question is, how did he jump from the loose argument about the Count on sesame street being demonic, vis a vis his earlier assertion about the 'proliferation' of primetime televison with vampire themed shows to a rant about Sigmund Freud. Discredited is a harsh word to use. Yes the man was a wacko, a lil deviant, but.... BUT , his work LAID a lot of the GROUNDWORK upon which a lot of now current work and known fact rests. You cannot ignore his contribution to his field. Some of his theories were expanded upon and others discarded in favour of new ones. this may come as a shock to you Blue, but thought and common consensus also goes thru a process of evolution. its a key part of the process that keeps society together and moves it forward..

Fact remains that he was not, nor will he be the only great thinker that didnt have a perfect batting record. Do we evaluate the worth of one's contribution to humanity based on one set of theories or do we weigh the value as added up next to others and in so far as how they helped others in that field advance and add new thought to the pool. If all others were held to such scrutiny, then sociology/psychology texts today would be without the contributions of Cesare Lombroso and his contributions to criminology and sociology.

Lombroso, for those who would remember, ignored the thinking of the 'classical school' and formed his own thoughts about crime and deviance having links to physical features and defects. He refined it to form his theory about 'Atavism'. This made others classify his work as Anthropological Criminology- essentialy that criminality was inherited and that the posession of certian physical features made it possible to determine someone who might have a predisposition to commit criminal activity...

Ask any layman now about that, and they look at you and laugh, but really, Lombroso in his time was respected and contributed massively to the study of crime and deviance.... Doh mind that his theory about atavistic man was smelling a lot like discrimination and bigotry...

So then,,,compare that to Freud. do we use the same yardstick to measure?

[sMASH]

i remember some new jehovia witness and she daughter corner meh, and we discussed (more like me posing questions and them quoting stuff which not relevant to the questions) for about 20 mins. moms gone, me and daughter remain, she realize her quotes not actually answering the questions and decided to leave to meet back her mom (or she fed up take midday sun)

week after moms come callin by my house, when she see is me and i ask she other questions, she asked me if i read that, and i confirmed and she said good and that is all she wanted to know and walked to another house.

dem just like Twiggy,,, on first up in the morning, in the same sentence she stated that lavantee voting PNM and that they fed up see trouble, and still doesn't make the link that maybe they should try to vote differently. she said that lavantee wuz supposed to get money, but the rest of the country doesn't want them to get it, that is why election was called. you could have sensed the veins bursting in fazeer's head from his vocalizations.

[d spike]

i remember some new jehovia witness and she daughter corner meh, and we discussed (more like me posing questions and them quoting stuff which not relevant to the questions) ...

Jehovah's Witnesses are only interested in disseminating their information. They will engage in discussion only to try and make you realize that you should perhaps acquire one of their tracts/magazines. They will not allow you to pin them in a discussion on one topic - you will notice their ability to evade questions and introduce another topic.

[illumin@ti]

buh eh eh ,,,,, look cobweb up in harr ...*cough* ,,, Spike!!! Dappa !! Razkal !!! MG !! whey allyuh ?

[MG Man]

oh jeez natos..............whyyyyyyyyyyy

[illumin@ti]

Ah bounce up a babble thumper this evening....... he was talking, and talking, and talking, and talking bout the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints..... dude looked like he was trippin on E...

and im thinking, oh the irony... a black Mormon tryin to convert me?!?!?! to what ?

wasnt the Mormon faith against the salvation of minorities? can someone with the relevant subject matter expertise contribute?

[MG Man]

rofl
why bother
they can't even spell Moron