Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[TubbyTubby]

No unfortunately.
I say that a christian can't blame an atheist that he doesn't believe in God if you don't believe yourself that you can grow a limb out in Jesus' Name.

OK. I think I need to go get a large glass of Jack.

 

[Josiah]

As you are I am certain well aware, physics makes predictions that can be tested and verified. So, no faith is being exercised for example if we believe that general relativity, or evolution, are sound explanations for what we observe. We can assume that what we observe is reality, otherwise we can assume nothing. It is only when we believe something not observable, testable and verifiable that we are using faith.

I completely disagree. Physics ASSUMES much - including a concept of "reality."

No. When you CHOOSE a view, when you assume - that's springs from our faith.

"Testible" by what? According to whom? For what? There are a lot of very fundamental assumptions there.....

Evidence that we can all objectively agree is real

I think few scientists would agree with that.... but it only helps reveal the "box" your faith has created.

What "evidence?" Who is the "all?" What "objectivity?" "Real" according to YOU? Are you simply insisting all submit to YOUR faith?

Do you mandate that "all" MUST submit to YOUR faith, YOUR "box", YOUR assumptions of "evidence", YOUR arbitration, YOUR faith's embrace of what is and is not "real?" Do you thus claim that all who don't docilicly submit to YOUR faith and creations is thus not a part of "all" (which might explain why Atheists often are so demeaning to theists... why the implications that we are not as enlightened, intelligent, informed, thinking, human as they?)

...the skeptic makes no positive claim

Then you need to denounce and repudiate all the statements you've made about what is and is not "real." And repudiate the rubric that what is "real" must be evidenced by what YOUR faith accepts as valid tools, in accordance with YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR tools.

By compelling evidence, I mean things like gravitational lenses, a prediction of general relativity, which has been verified. We are compelled to examine this evidence, because it is there or all to see.

.... in other words, all must docilicly submit to YOUR faith, YOUR "box", YOUR choices, YOUR assumptions, what YOU believe is real.... and can only examine that from within YOUR faith, YOUR box, with the tools that exists in YOUR box as arbitrated by you?

.... rather circular. Your faith insists on creating the box - and (ironcially) repudiates as impossible any other. Then.... as a natural outcome of that... rejects any other.

.... interesting, we (does that include you? I mean that, it is a sincere question) must EXAMINE. What, Mark? YOUR concept of reality? YOUR faith? YOUR "box"? The validity of insisting all must submit to the tools of YOUR box and to YOUR arbitration? Consider what some Athests rebuke theists for doing.

Whose "evidence?" Mark, you are simply stating that what ones faith has embraced as "real" or "authentic" thus supplies the "evidence". Kind of circular, don't you agree? If YOU can mandate all docilicly submit to YOUR faith and "box" or they are ... well..... unenlightened, uninformed, stupid.... then can't any other? Or are you special among all people? Just something to think about, Mark.... you need not reply.

If someone says they believe something for which there is no real compelling evidence

Again, note the insistence that we all must docilicly submit to YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR concepts of "evidence" "reality" "compelling", YOUR "tools", YOUR arbitration. Could this be the very thing some Atheists acuse theists of doing?

Yes, you MAY have some examined, clear "box" of what is and is not "real" and what is and is not "evidence" and what is or is not "compelling." But these are creations of YOUR faith, these are YOUR created "box" (and it seems incredibly fuzzy to me!). And sure - if you INSIST there is no reality beyond that indicated by YOUR faith.... and that any CLAIM of some other reality MUST be subject to YOUR concept of reality as proven by the tools in YOUR box and arbitrated by YOU according to YOUR faith - then all you've created is a pure circle... with one intent and only one possiblity: to protect your faith. How is that "examining?" How is that being "skeptical?" It's a circle.... created by your faith perhaps to protect the same from the very examining you claim is essential?


You claim to be a skeptic. Show me your skepticism about that statements you've made about reality. About compelling. About evidence. About "seeing."




Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I completely disagree. Physics ASSUMES much - including a concept of "reality."

No. When you CHOOSE a view, when you assume - that's springs from our faith.

"Testible" by what? According to whom? For what? There are a lot of very fundamental assumptions there.....

You are bound and determined to insist that rejection of faith is somehow a type of faith itself. What claim am I making with no good evidence to back it?

This may shed some light on why testability is important:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I think few scientists would agree with that...

So, how does science progress if there is little agreement in the scientific community about what constitutes valid evidence?

 

[Josiah]

You are bound and determined to insist that rejection of faith is somehow a type of faith itself.

Of course, I never REMOTELY stated or even implied any such thing (nor do I accept it). The rejection of faith is absolute paranoia, but quite unrelated to our discussion.

Our other friend has been very bold in affirming a very strong opinion of what is (and is not) "real." You less so, but nonetheless, seem to be affirming such? Those firm, bold ASSUMPTIONS don't come out of thin air, from nothing. They are the creation of our faith... and such faith creates our "box".

You seem to have been quite negative toward any "box" other than the one YOUR faith created.

What claim am I making with no good evidence to back it?

What DO you claim?

Well, that you are a skeptic. Let's see this strong skepticism toward the "box" that reality is what "we" "observe" according to the "evidence" "we" acknowledge as valid as arbitrated by "we." And be sure to identify exactly who this "we" is. And that ALL must be "examined" for the assumptions/values/faith that creates the "box" and "method" but I haven't seen you do either toward the materialist/physical views being proported to be "real" and the only reality in this thread by some.

Yes, NATURAL science affirms some sense of natural (which may be why it's called natural science). It thus doesn't "deal" with the SUPERnatural. Which is just one reason I gave for why it is absurd to look to science to prove or disprove the supernatural. Yet, often, Atheists demand exactly that. And that all MUST accept THEIR "box", THEIR faith, THEIR concepts of reality, THEIR "tools" in that box for evaluation (even for things claimed to be outside that box), THEIR arbitration according to THEIR faith, THEIR assumptions, THEIR methods, THEIR "box," THIER arbitration. Ironically, while rebuking others who they claim do the very same thing. Some will then ridicule, mock, denounce any who do the same thing as unenlightened, uninformed, unintelligent, inhuman and perhaps just silly ( I wonder if you go so far as to exclude such from the "we" of your box?).

YOu said "we" must EXAMINE our "box", our assumptions, our ideas of what is and is not. That "we" must be SKEPTICS. Does this "we" include you? Your concepts? Your methods? Your faith? Your 'box?'

So, how does science progress if there is little agreement in the scientific community about what constitutes valid evidence?

I've no clue where that question comes from..... But as I've said, physics certainly DOES have a "box" (not nearly as well defined - theoretically - as a century ago but a "box" nonetheless). And it most certainly DOES have a pretty well thought out process for evaluation. But this has nothign to do with anything I said or with anything related to this thread. Buddhists have a "box" too. What is your point? Only that you have the highest degree of skepticism about all (but yours?????), that all are open to question by YOU according to YOUR faith, YOUR "box", YOUR methods, YOUR tools (but yours?????)

But to my point, I disagreed with your assumption created by your faith that what is 'real' can only be what is observable. Different faiths create different boxes, as you show.





Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Of course, I never REMOTELY stated or even implied any such thing (nor do I accept it). The rejection of faith is absolute paranoia, but quite unrelated to our discussion.

You keep referring to the acceptance that what is observable and testable is reality as some kind of faith. I more or less accept this as a definition of reality...that the natural world that manifests itself in various ways is what we collectively call reality. Sure, we could all simply be part of a sophisticated simulation running on a machine (none of us can prove this isn't the case), but taking what we see and measure as reality yields useful results.

You seem to have been quite negative toward any "box" other than the one YOUR faith created.

I am skeptical of any box that includes things for which there is no compelling evidence...such boxes are not fruitful. A box that includes general relativity predicts gravitational lenses, and black holes for example...and we then find such things. Such a box is useful because it leads to increased knowledge. A box that includes the supernatural does not increase our knowledge. It makes no predictions, it only makes unfounded assertions. It is of no use to me.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Of course, I never REMOTELY stated or even implied any such thing (nor do I accept it). The rejection of faith is absolute paranoia, but quite unrelated to our discussion.

Our other friend has been very bold in affirming a very strong opinion of what is (and is not) "real." You less so, but nonetheless, seem to be affirming such? Those firm, bold ASSUMPTIONS don't come out of thin air, from nothing. They are the creation of our faith... and such faith creates our "box".

You seem to have been quite negative toward any "box" other than the one YOUR faith created.





What DO you claim?

Well, that you are a skeptic. Let's see this strong skepticism toward the "box" that reality is what "we" "observe" according to the "evidence" "we" acknowledge as valid as arbitrated by "we." And be sure to identify exactly who this "we" is. And that ALL must be "examined" for the assumptions/values/faith that creates the "box" and "method" but I haven't seen you do either toward the materialist/physical views being proported to be "real" and the only reality in this thread by some.

Yes, NATURAL science affirms some sense of natural (which may be why it's called natural science). It thus doesn't "deal" with the SUPERnatural. Which is just one reason I gave for why it is absurd to look to science to prove or disprove the supernatural. Yet, often, Atheists demand exactly that. And that all MUST accept THEIR "box", THEIR faith, THEIR concepts of reality, THEIR "tools" in that box for evaluation (even for things claimed to be outside that box), THEIR arbitration according to THEIR faith, THEIR assumptions, THEIR methods, THEIR "box," THIER arbitration. Ironically, while rebuking others who they claim do the very same thing. Some will then ridicule, mock, denounce any who do the same thing as unenlightened, uninformed, unintelligent, inhuman and perhaps just silly ( I wonder if you go so far as to exclude such from the "we" of your box?).

YOu said "we" must EXAMINE our "box", our assumptions, our ideas of what is and is not. That "we" must be SKEPTICS. Does this "we" include you? Your concepts? Your methods? Your faith? Your 'box?'





I've no clue where that question comes from..... But as I've said, physics certainly DOES have a "box" (not nearly as well defined - theoretically - as a century ago but a "box" nonetheless). And it most certainly DOES have a pretty well thought out process for evaluation. But this has nothign to do with anything I said or with anything related to this thread. Buddhists have a "box" too. What is your point? Only that you have the highest degree of skepticism about all (but yours?????), that all are open to question by YOU according to YOUR faith, YOUR "box", YOUR methods, YOUR tools (but yours?????)

But to my point, I disagreed with your assumption created by your faith that what is 'real' can only be what is observable. Different faiths create different boxes, as you show.





Thank you.


- Josiah

What was your PhD and what's your field of research?

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah but as a Christian, it would be not nice not to pick on atheists or others that do not share the Christian religion. You know what I mean!

 

[MarkFL]

Yeah but as a Christian, it would be not nice not to pick on atheists or others that do not share the Christian religion. You know what I mean!

Picking on others for whatever reason, really isn't nice no matter who you are. Civil disagreement is fine, but picking on people implies derisive and/or hostile interaction.

 

[psalms 91]

Yet so many do it

 

[Josiah]

You keep referring to the acceptance that what is observable and testable is reality as some kind of faith.

No, I never remotely suggested that. [Friend, it would be helpful if you quoted the words of my post that you are replying to]

You make assumptions based on your faith, your "world view". That tends to create your "box" - the "reality" (in its broadest sense) that you accept. For TubbyTubby, that's a certain (it seems extremely limited) embrace of only what is physical/material and "see-able" to him. While you only now responded to my requests for YOUR 'box', we learn yours is similar.

What you seem to be doing is demanding, mandating that all docilicly submit to your faith, your assumptions, your "box", your "tools", your arbitration. This seems typical of the few Atheists I've encountered, often indicating that those who don't so submit to them are not enlightened, intelligent, informed, educated, honest.... even at times questioning their humanity (as I wondered in a previous post where - consistently - "all" people only includes those who submit to THEIR faith, THEIR box, THEIR methods.

I more or less accept this as a definition of reality...that the natural world that manifests itself in various ways is what we collectively call reality.

So..... your faith has created a very small "box" of what YOU deem "natural" THUS, ergo, the supernatural is just out-of-hand dismissed.

And there's that questionable "we". Who exactly is this "we" you and TubbyTubby keep talking about? What 'manifestation' and what "various ways?"

Of course, most have a faith that creates a bigger box. In the USA today, roughly 80% or so consider the supernatural to be real and to have manifested itself in "various ways" but evidently, they are not "we." And evidently you reject their "various ways." Who is this "we" and this "collectively" you keep talking about?

Or are you simply mandating that "we" docilicly submit to "YOU?" To YOUR faith, YOUR assumptions, YOUR 'box' - at least if we are among the "we", the enlightened, informed, honest, intelligent, modern homo sapiens?

Sure, we could all simply be part of a sophisticated simulation running on a machine (none of us can prove this isn't the case), but taking what we see and measure as reality yields useful results.

So, your awareness that your created "box" COULD be wrong is irrelevant and of no concern to you. HUM. Do you extend that same respect to the vast majority of people who have a different "box" and you? Even if they can't "PROVE" (??) that, even to themselves and certainly you make it impossible for such to be "proven" to you? So, you realize your "box" springs from your faith? HUM. Do you respect that equally from others who don't share your box?

Yes, no doubt about it, although not perfectly, not always, the stuff in your box "fits" with the stuff in your box. My work in science DEPENDS on that very typical situation. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything we're discussing, and certainly as nothing to do with any claimed reality outside your box. It only means that the natural will tend to affirm the natural (big surprise). But what seems absurd to ME is the insistence that what is OUTSIDE natural MUST be confirmed exclusively by what is INSIDE it, you insist on "proof" (??) of the SUPERnatural from the natural. Kind of silly, isn't it? Kind of like PROVING I have $2000.00 in an account in the Bank of Switzerland but insisting one can ONLY look at accounts at the Bank of America..... like insisting all must PROVE (??) their is life on Mars but can only study the Earth.

I have not rebuked your faith - and thus the 'box' you've created for yourself. All the implied mockery has flowed the other way. But I HAVE noted (and I wonder if you all BUT are admitting it) that your 'box' is the creation of your faith no less than it is for all people (here I mean "all" to mean all people, not just those who agree with ME as I suspect you and TubbyTubby mean). And I've noted the inappropriateness of the demand that the supernatural be made subject only and exclusiely to the natural and if such cannot be "proven" (??) by YOUR methods as arbitrated by YOU to be natural, then it's been proven to be false or at least unfounded (if not the other things thrown as those you don't share YOUR faith - unenlightened, uninformed, unintelligent, silly, stupid, flowing from insecurity and weakness, brainwashed and the other things Atheists at times state or imply is the case with those who don't docilicly submit to THEIR faith, THEIR "box", THEIR methods, THEIR demands, THEIR arbitration. Why, at times, I wonder if those who don't so submit to their faith are even considered to be fully human (as in "all" do this.... "all" accept this..... "people" do this..... all leveled to show that the small minority who share your faith are the real "all" "we" "humans"? Probably not, but disturbing nonetheless - and getting to the issue of this thread). I don't think you are unintelligent or uninformed or insecure or deficient in any way..... just perhaps inconsistent, applying a double standard. I think at times Atheists ironcially accuse non-submitters of the very thing they themselves do.

I am skeptical of any box that includes things for which there is no compelling evidence

I mean NO disrespect whatsoever, my friend, and I'm SURE you are sincere there, but step back. Can you see the pure hypocrisy in that statement? What faith, what "box", what "method" are you EXCLUDING (entirely!) from your skepticism? Can you see the imposition you are making if YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration as you speak of "things" "compelling" "evidence?" This whole sentence is an absolute contradiction. As I predicted, you aren't skeptical AT ALL, not a bit, not in the least. You simply desire all to docilicly submit to YOUR faith, YOUR box..... your "skepticism" is simply a choice to reject all you don't accept. You have not even displayed an willingness (perhaps even ability) to be skeptical.

And (again, sincerely, NO disrespect implied)..... it can be very insulting, very disrespectful to the vast majority of people who do not share your faith, your box, your methods, your arbitration. And (IMO) are NOT therefore ( as a direct and mandated result of not docilicly submitting to YOUR faith, YOUR box) ignorant, uniformed, unintelligent, brainwashed, deficient, bigoted, wasting their time ..........

A box that includes the supernatural does not increase our knowledge.

Well, not YOURS. Why? Because it's outside your chosen, your created "box."

And again, I note that "ours." You never define who this "we" this "all" this "our" is. Seems to me you are at least rejecting 80% of the the American population - and perhaps 95% of posters at CH.

Now, if the "we" are those who submit to YOUR faith, YOUR 'box", YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration...... I "see" your point. Obviously, they have limited themselves to the "knowledge" in that created 'box' and exclude anything beyond that. But it's pretty .... well, I don't want to use the word... to insist that there THEREFORE cannot be any "knowledge" outside YOUR created 'box.' I think a more honest way to put it is that you reject the possibility of knowledge that fits within your box will be found outside your box. I'd agree with that.

And notice how your statement is just "poo-pooing" (rather disrespectfully, I might add) what others regard as knowledge - even knowledge of the most profound, most important nature.



If you step back..... I wonder if you can see the disrespect, the insult in what you (however unintentionally) posted? And the irony since you seem to be demanding that all respect YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration, what YOU define as "knowing?" And can you see the complete, total LACK of any skepticism on your part? Rhetorical questions, my friend .... but ones I think you'd benefit from honestly exploring.....

I don't at all rebuke you (that's always coming to ME from atheists).... I just think atheists do the same thing most people do: Consciencely or not, examined or not - our faith has created our 'box' and then we tend to operate within it. Thus being unable to work outside it. It HELPS, in a way, if we are at least aware of what we're doing.... if we examine it and admit it..... it helps to understand others and to respect others and tends to limit the rather insulting, dehumanizing, disrespectful things as we've even witnessed in this thread - on all sides, including (albeit entirely unintentionally!) from you. You speak of "examining" but you've never once indicated an ability or desire to examine YOUR box. You speak often of "skepticism" but indicate a seeming inability or unwillingness of any skepticism whatsoever toward YOUR box (although in passing you seem to admit the possibility of error, however absurdly). I don't reject what's "in" your box (although I embrace it FAR more lightly than you.... perhaps my theoretical physics classes causes that).... mine is just bigger than yours. But I'm NOT calling your intelligence or faith or humanity into question in the way Atheists seem to do (however subtly and perhaps unintentionally), I respect your choice. It's just I've never seen it returned (quite the opposite). And... what I find so ironic.... is that these very same Atheists rebuke others for the very identical same thing THEY do (sometimes worse).

I won't change your box (and that's not my intent). BUT I do hope you can step back a bit and use a tiny bit of that "examine" and "skepticism" you talk SO much about.... on yourself. ??






Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[TubbyTubby]

If you step back..... I wonder if you can see the disrespect, the insult in what you (however unintentionally) posted? And the irony since you seem to be demanding that all respect YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration, what YOU define as "knowing?"

Thank you.


- Josiah

Josiah, could you tell me what your PhD was and what your field of research is in please?

 

[TubbyTubby]

Josiah, could you tell me what your PhD was and what your field of research is in please?

Thank you.


- Josiah

You've repeatedly quoted your education and current work in scientific research in support of your theistic arguments in this forum and I would like you to back that up with some evidence.

If you're not happy to tell me detail of your PhD then fair enough, at least respond and tell me that you don't want to do that.

 

[MarkFL]

...

As I form my worldview, I am solely interested in those things which are demonstrably true...I am not interested in things without solid evidence, like supernatural, magical beings or other such speculation. You say this makes my box smaller. I would readily agree this is true, but loading my box with such baggage is of no use to me with respect to my worldview goal...which is to believe as many true things as possible. This is a case of "less is more" for me.

You insist I have faith...If you can point to an example of how my atheism, driven by skepticism, leads me to believe something for which there is no compelling evidence, I would be glad to re-examine and modify my worldview. If I am believing in something with no good reason, I will remove it from my box immediately. Likewise, if I am dismissing something that in fact does have evidence to support it, I will add it to my box immediately.

 

[psalms 91]

You have faith in your abilities or perhaps in a government or a program. But you have faith in something

 

[Josiah]

You've repeatedly quoted your education and current work in scientific research in support of your theistic arguments in this forum and I would like you to back that up with some evidence.

I've NEVER done that.


Some concepts of "science" were preached specifically to me (as if I were ignorant of such). I simply, only, exclusively noted my degree to indicate I'm not ignorant in the area, I never claimed superiority. I did note my personal disagreement with some scientific dogmatic statements noted to me but only in passing and never as a supportive argument. IF my argument hinged on some special knowledge I alone here have as a result of my studies, in other words my view hinges on my education or job - you'd have a reason to inquire about such. But it doesn't. Obviously. If you wish to conclude I'm lying and actually I'm a high school dropout who works as McDonalds - that's okay with me, it has no impact on any point I made.... and note, I've not demanded to know the job description of you or Mark to defend statements you've made about science (although, yes, IN PASSING, I've noted my perhaps disagreement - ending the point there since it's irrelevant).

And (one of my many frustrations here), I never in this thread REMOTELY supported.... anything. Friend, conversations like this are much more helpful if you read what you are responding to, and note what is stated. I have never reported by research at all (if I did you wouldn't have asked about it)..... I have never made a theistic argument here - much less used scientific arguments to defend such (in fact, if you read my posts, I denounced the possibility of that and denounced the demand for such). And you either didn't read or just ignored the whole point about evidence, methodology, arbitration, "compelling". Your whole post to me seems to suggest you haven't read anything I've posted. Would you step back and at least consider that possibility?

Here's how things usually go in a discussion forum..... points are made. People may QUOTE those points and reply to the POINTS - perhaps with support, perhaps with rebuttal, perhaps with questions concerning the point.


Back to the issue at hand.




Thank you.

 

[MarkFL]

You have faith in your abilities or perhaps in a government or a program. But you have faith in something

These things: personal abilities, governments, programs...they have evidence for their existence...we see them in action. So, is it really faith if, for example, I observe that I am able to produce a vBulletin add-on today, that I believe I will be able to do so tomorrow?

 

[Josiah]

These things: personal abilities, governments, programs...they have evidence for their existence...we see them in action. So, is it really faith if, for example, I observe that I am able to produce a vBulletin add-on today, that I believe I will be able to do so tomorrow?

Your faith created your box, your methods, the basis of your arbitration. Working exclusively from your faith, exclusively in your box, with your methods, your arbitration is predictable: it defends and upholds your faith, your box. It's how that works. What I find.... notable.... is that you seem to "see" this in o?thers but not in yourself. You speak a LOT about "examining" and being "skeptical" but this only seems to apply to what is not in conformity with YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration?

See post # 170



.

 

[MarkFL]

Your faith created your box, your methods, the basis of your arbitration. Working exclusively from your faith, exclusively in your box, with your methods, your arbitration is predictable: it defends and upholds your faith, your box. It's how that works. What I find.... notable.... is that you seem to "see" this in o?thers but not in yourself. You speak a LOT about "examining" and being "skeptical" but this only seems to apply to what is not in conformity with YOUR faith, YOUR box, YOUR methods, YOUR arbitration?

You insist I have faith...If you can point to an example of how my atheism, driven by skepticism, leads me to believe something for which there is no compelling evidence, I would be glad to re-examine and modify my worldview. If I am believing in something with no good reason, I will remove it from my box immediately. Likewise, if I am dismissing something that in fact does have evidence to support it, I will add it to my box immediately.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I've NEVER done that.


Actually, your assumptions (call them "belief") also requires faith. Sure, if you chose to believe that "physics" is what is "real" (I have a Ph.D. in physics and I have NO IDEA what that clause even means!)

So do you have a degree or a PhD? What is your field of research? Simple questions Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

You insist I have faith...If you can point to an example of how my atheism, driven by skepticism, leads me to believe something for which there is no compelling evidence, I would be glad to re-examine and modify my worldview. If I am believing in something with no good reason, I will remove it from my box immediately. Likewise, if I am dismissing something that in fact does have evidence to support it, I will add it to my box immediately.

See posts 151 162, 164, 170. I have no indication that you've read the VAST majority of those posts..... and as a result, you keep preaching the same sermon and asking me the same questions (already replied to). You keep mandating repetition from me that is unfortunate (and I will mostly avoid) and since unread, counterproductive. May I invite you to read (or re-read, if that's the case) those 4 posts in their entirety (I admit, they largely repeat the same things since you keep preaching the same sermon and asking the same questions). I think we can avoid wasting a lot of webspace and time if you would so courteously do that?


As expressed several times now (but never noted), your "box" didn't spring out of nothing... and I doubt you insist it came to you as some unquestionable Divine Revelation, no, you created it by your assumptions, your choices.... it flows from your "world view." It's a creation of your faith, your assumptions, your world view. Your view of what is and is not for example is designed to conform to such. Now, you'd pretty well documented that the "EXAMINATION" you speak so often about.... the "SKEPTICISM" you stress is so important... these are excluded from your faith, your 'box', your method, your arbitration. It simply means that you reject anything other than YOUR faith, your "box", your methods, your arbitration.... you've created a closed, circular system that exists to reaffirm and not challenge your faith, your box, your methods, your conclusions. I've not denounced that (I've even noted how common it is) but it is what it is. I've ONLY indicated you might benefit from stepping back and permitting your mandate about "examining" and "skepticism" to apply to the "box" you keep preaching as the "reality." And..... perhaps...... show a little respect to others who do as you do?

Again, read the entirely of those recent posts to you. I think that will clarify much.... or at least will negate endless repetition of the same. If you have a sincere new question, QUOTE the section of the post and I'll do my best to clarify.




.