Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is condescending to pretend superstitions are something other than superstitions, and those that know this are ignorant.
And considering you once asserted those who use negative terms are irrational, should you be using dismissive and condescending pejorative terms such as 'ignorant', 'dismissive', 'condescending' and 'pejorative'?
Perhaps, Harry, but I suspect that describing religions as superstitions or based on superstitions doesn't do much for the discussion other than rankle religious people. As you go on to point out, it might be best to avoid the more insulting ways of describing alternative beliefs and ways of thinking, because insults never seem to foster the sort of discussions most people prefer if the goal is to simply clarify the facts and truths of these matters.
Are you saying you have not read or don't understand my many efforts to describe our universal truths? Define what they are?
In addition to all those efforts, I like yours too. To supplement my definition or explanation as to what are universal truths. Among other characteristics, truth does not change. Yes. True.
The Earth revolves around the Sun. This is a universal truth, today. One no intelligent reasonable person disputes. Typical of most if not all our universal truths. Doesn't change. A caveat to this fact/truth, however. Someday this fact will no longer be a fact or truth other than in the past tense.
We might consider another universal truth about how nothing remains the same forever, but rather than wallow in the rest of the dust you seem intent on tossing into these simple observations about reality, AKA our universal truths, I'll leave it to you to either accept as any reasonably intelligent person should or reject for whatever your reasons.
The proof that communication is effective is only one thing - the message is understood. If it is not and if it raises more questions than answers the communicator is ineffective. Blaming the recipients and calling them "unintelligent" may feel good, but the message is still faulty and the communicator failed.
My questions are not nitpicking. These are questions several have asked. In good faith. The fact that this irritates you is indication that you have not understood them completely yourself and are unable to explain it. You just want them to read it and understand them and perhaps explain to you your own message.
If, as you claim, several have told you backchannel that they like what you say, then good for them. Perhaps they can post here and illuminate the message for us.
The proof that communication is effective is only one thing - the message is understood. If it is not and if it raises more questions than answers the communicator is ineffective. Blaming the recipients and calling them "unintelligent" may feel good, but the message is still faulty and the communicator failed.
My questions are not nitpicking. These are questions several have asked. In good faith. The fact that this irritates you is indication that you have not understood them completely yourself and are unable to explain it. You just want them to read it and understand them and perhaps explain to you your own message.
If, as you claim, several have told you backchannel that they like what you say, then good for them. Perhaps they can post here and illuminate the message for us.
The proof that communication is effective is only one thing - the message is understood. If it is not and if it raises more questions than answers the communicator is ineffective. Blaming the recipients and calling them "unintelligent" may feel good, but the message is still faulty and the communicator failed.
My questions are not nitpicking. These are questions several have asked. In good faith. The fact that this irritates you is indication that you have not understood them completely yourself and are unable to explain it. You just want them to read it and understand them and perhaps explain to you your own message.
If, as you claim, several have told you backchannel that they like what you say, then good for them. Perhaps they can post here and illuminate the message for us.
I'll leave it to you and others to decide about where the failings are here. I just call 'em the way I see 'em is all, for you and others to judge as you will. If I haven't more than adequately addressed your questions and those of "others" (Tzap), I'm at a loss as to what better communication will work. I've made more than a fair effort at this point far as I'm concerned, and perhaps it's best to leave some questions for you to either figure out on your own by more carefully reviewing the record or simply accept there is confusion here I can't help you with.
I have made quite clear what I am referring to when I reference universal truths. Many times, over and over. Sorry if you can't accept this simple truth as well.
I'll leave it to you and others to decide about where the failings are here. I just call 'em the way I see 'em is all, for you and others to judge as you will. If I haven't more than adequately addressed your questions and those of "others" (Tzap), I'm at a loss as to what better communication will work. I've made more than a fair effort at this point far as I'm concerned, and perhaps it's best to leave some questions for you to either figure out on your own by more carefully reviewing the record or simply accept there is confusion here I can't help you with.
I have made quite clear what I am referring to when I reference universal truths. Many times, over and over. Sorry if you can't accept this simple truth as well.
I am sorry that you feel Tzaph and I have some special mission to question you. You know very well that many people you have asked to read that post have found holes in it that are unconvincing. we have all read those responses and your rebuff of those who took the time to read and respond in detail is stunning. Hey, whatever makes you feel good. life is short.
I am sorry that you feel Tzaph and I have some special mission to question you. You know very well that many people you have asked to read that post have found holes in it that are unconvincing. we have all read those responses and your rebuff of those who took the time to read and respond in detail is stunning. Hey, whatever makes you feel good. life is short.
Indeed life is a little too short to belabor your issues along these lines any further, and time for me to sign off anyway. So perhaps enough said, but I don't have any sense you and Tzap have "some special mission to question me." I think your questions and/or confusion is honest. I just don't know what to do about them beyond all I've tried to explain already is all.
Some of you have had trouble with what I've explained. Others not at all. Again, I'm okay to leave it at that, since I honestly feel I've explained myself more than should be necessary.
I am sorry that you feel Tzaph and I have some special mission to question you. You know very well that many people you have asked to read that post have found holes in it that are unconvincing. we have all read those responses and your rebuff of those who took the time to read and respond in detail is stunning. Hey, whatever makes you feel good. life is short.
But other posters aren't so much into 'cross-examination'.
I'll leave it to you and others to decide about where the failings are here. I just call 'em the way I see 'em is all, for you and others to judge as you will. If I haven't more than adequately addressed your questions and those of "others" (Tzap), I'm at a loss as to what better communication will work. I've made more than a fair effort at this point far as I'm concerned, and perhaps it's best to leave some questions for you to either figure out on your own by more carefully reviewing the record or simply accept there is confusion here I can't help you with.
I have made quite clear what I am referring to when I reference universal truths. Many times, over and over. Sorry if you can't accept this simple truth as well.
Actually, you have NOT made it clear what universal truths you are referring to that APPLY TO RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY! You seem to skip over that detail which is quite relevant to this particular forum. I suspect it is deliberate because you know full well that what YOU consider universal truths about religion and spirituality are not remotely universal!
Secularism is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. Right. This doesn't cancel the practice of religion as a way of life.
No need to tell me what to like about secularism. I certainly prefer secularism over the alternatives. That's for sure.
I think you are using sterile reason to analyze cultural life. A state is a political organization. An ant nest probably seems pretty well-organized from your point of view. To me, it is much like a community of people living together in accordance with their spiritual values.
If you were an entomologist, how would you introduce secularism into a bug's life to grow an ant farm for more than one specie of ants?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
