Posted on 09/27/2007 9:05:18 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
Perhaps, but I do not wish to disbelieve in God.
“Smug alert. It was you who brought up the matter of God telling people things.”
lol... I’ll see your smug and raise you a self righteous and an obnoxious. It was you who implied that demons or “supernatural beings” might be telling me how to live my life. Thats about as smug, self righteous and obnoxious as you can get.
Let’s review the action...
You said, “Don’t you think it possible that God Himself can reveal to individuals the path he wants them to take?”
I replied, “Sure. However, God does not tell people that He wants them to remain atheist or agnostic, or to remain outside the Church. If some supernatural being is telling you those things, it is not God, nor anyone in his employ.”
A person of normal English ability would see that this is the generic “you,” as in the old saw, “You can lead a jackass to knowledge, but you can’t make him learn,” and not the pronoun “you” used to mean the poster monday.
Congratulations, you have progressed to insulting people for things they didn’t say.
sigh..... In the first place, you used “People” in the first part, “you” in the second part. In normal English usage that means you meant a generic ‘everyman’ for the first part of your statement, but that you meant ‘me’ personally, for the second part of your statement. You cannot change conventions half way through a statement, and expect people to read your mind as to what your intentions were.
In the second place it is self evident that God does not tell “people” to remain agnostic, or to not believe in Him. For Him to do so would be idiotic. That you implied that I was too stupid to realize that is insulting in it’self. What makes it worse is that you also implied that supernatural beings might be telling me to be atheist or agnostic.
” “You can lead a jackass to knowledge, but you can’t make him learn,” and not the pronoun ...”
I suppose you will claim that this isn’t an attempt to insult me as well? See how you are?
“you used “People” in the first part, “you” in the second part. In normal English usage that means you meant a generic ‘everyman’ for the first part of your statement, but that you meant ‘me’ personally, for the second part of your statement.”
No, in normal English usage it is obvious that the “you” is the generic everyman. Everything is not about you.
“You cannot change conventions half way through a statement, and expect people to read your mind as to what your intentions were.”
I don’t even expect people to read the English as to what my intentions were. In that way, I avoid disappointment.
“That you implied that I was too stupid to realize that is insulting in it’self. What makes it worse is that you also implied that supernatural beings might be telling me to be atheist or agnostic.”
You said, “Must I believe in some random God and His associated religion in order to avoid your condemnation? Would you prefer that everyone just became whatever religion their parents happen to be? Don’t you think it possible that God Himself can reveal to individuals the path he wants them to take?”
It was to this that I replied, “Sure. However, God does not tell people that He wants them to remain atheist or agnostic, or to remain outside the Church.” That in no way implies stupidity on your part. It’s a “yes, but” of the sort commonly seen in this sort of discussion.
Then, never imagining that you are aware of any communications from supernatural beings, given the nature of your remarks, but at the same time knowing that supernatural beings on both sides of the war between good and evil do, in fact, communicate with and influence people, I wrote, “If some supernatural being is telling you those things, it is not God, nor anyone in his employ.” Again, that “you” is the generic “you.”
Even if it were not, it is not an insult. Supernatural beings on the wrong side of the war between good and evil do, in fact, tell people that they should remain atheist or agnostic, or to embrace some whacko religion. These people are never (or nearly never) aware of this, and I am among their number.
“I suppose you will claim that this isn’t an attempt to insult me as well? See how you are?”
If you think that it is wrongful to imply that someone is acting like a jackass, particularly in view of the things you’ve said, well…Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
Dern it. 504 was supposed to be to you.
Repeating verbatim a famous survey first conducted in 1916, Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia has found that the depth of religious faith among scientists has not budged regardless of whatever scientific and technical advances this century has wrought.
Then as now, about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey’s strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray ‘’in expectation of receiving an answer.’’ Roughly 15 percent in both surveys claimed to be agnostic or to have ‘’no definite belief’’ regarding the question, while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html
About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.
Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.
The opposite had been expected.
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
I don't think you have any grounds to complain, given the amount of threadcrapping you do.
Read the full article... it gets much worse.
Setting up phony websites and production companies, deliberately lying to dozens of prospective interviewees — all in all standard operating procedure for those who feel that anything is justified in carrying out what they feel is the will of God. What is completely lacking is any semblence of honesty.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The creationists are being charged with acting like atheists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.