Lets Be Honest About Praying

[SherylsShado]

Quote from falcon9:

Just as the words of 'believers' are just unsupported opinions - very often dodging any challenges to support them. 

     No believer is required to "support" or "defend" their beliefs in D&D.  For them to post in here is for them to be sharing something personal in the first place.   By now, I think believers know that as soon as they post something short and sweet...such as "I love Jesus" that they are going to be seeing responses back that treat them as if they are lesser beings.   They'll be told how 'gullible' they are and will be made to feel like they belong in a mental institution. 
     I don't think they are "dodging any challenges", but rather "dodging those that are unable to see that their own opinions are 'just as unsupported' to believers".   

[SherylsShado]

I wasn't "indirectly implying" anything as I have no way of knowing what anyone's intentions are for using the FC forum other than my own.

From your remarks, the direct implication was/is that you perceive such religious commentary as "witnessing to non-believers".  Is that correct?

I was just simply wondering how it's even possible for some of the Believers on here to even talk and "witness" to a non-believer "in the real world" if they can't manage to act with any more kindness than has been displayed here in the forums to non-believers...

Then remarks were correctly discerned and such "witnessing" constitutes proselytizing, (preaching religious beliefs).  This is what my opposing viewpoints are opposing; the presumptuous arrogance of religious adherents in engaging in unsolicited "witnessing", (while hypocritically objecting to counter-arguments in opposition to such beliefs).  If they are free to "witness", I'm as free to present opposing 'witnesses', (counter-arguments), without the tacit censorship attempts they're putting forward to attempt to 'silence' any opposition, (by calling it "rude", "disrepectful" and such - while their proselytizing to "rude"/"disrespectful" of the non-religious positions others hold).

How in the world did you come up with that from my post?  I repeatedly said "in the real world"/"real life"---FC isn't my "real world"...is it yours?

[falcon9]

     No believer is required to "support" or "defend" their beliefs in D&D. 

While there is no requirement for religious adherents to support or defend their specious religious beliefs on D+D, (or elsewhere), failure to do so on a debate & discussion forum indicates that they merely want to make unsupported claims.  Should others want to point out that those religious claims constitute empty, (unsupported), opinions, they can accurately do so. 

For them to post in here is for them to be sharing something personal in the first place.

It's the D+D and off-topic forums, not the "sharing something personal" forum.  Since the D+D forum is specifically for posting contentious subject matter, they ought to know that going in instead of expecting an uncontested free-ride to proselytize.
 

By now, I think believers know that as soon as they post something short and sweet...such as "I love Jesus" that they are going to be seeing responses back that treat them as if they are lesser beings.

While they may occasionally get challenged on their religious declarations, such challenges are exactly that - not "treating them like lesser beings", (as that's a subjective and defensive response to being challenged, rather than responding _to_ such challenges).
    

They'll be told how 'gullible' they are and will be made to feel like they belong in a mental institution. 

Believing something in spite of a lack of evidence is an aspect of gullibility however, that alone isn't enough for a diagnosis of a mental condition under current clinical standards.

     I don't think they are "dodging any challenges", but rather "dodging those that are unable to see that their own opinions are 'just as unsupported' to believers".   

That is a false contention; the reasoning behind opposing "opinions", (counter-arguments to the unsupported opinions of religious adherents), has been delineated.  Whereas the most which religious adherents have come up with so far is 'they believe because they have faith and they have faith because they believe' circularity.  No, they are dodging challenges to their religious beliefs because they have no valid argument for believing other than unarticulated fears.

[falcon9]

I wasn't "indirectly implying" anything as I have no way of knowing what anyone's intentions are for using the FC forum other than my own.

From your remarks, the direct implication was/is that you perceive such religious commentary as "witnessing to non-believers".  Is that correct?

I was just simply wondering how it's even possible for some of the Believers on here to even talk and "witness" to a non-believer "in the real world" if they can't manage to act with any more kindness than has been displayed here in the forums to non-believers...

Then remarks were correctly discerned and such "witnessing" constitutes proselytizing, (preaching religious beliefs).  This is what my opposing viewpoints are opposing; the presumptuous arrogance of religious adherents in engaging in unsolicited "witnessing", (while hypocritically objecting to counter-arguments in opposition to such beliefs).  If they are free to "witness", I'm as free to present opposing 'witnesses', (counter-arguments), without the tacit censorship attempts they're putting forward to attempt to 'silence' any opposition, (by calling it "rude", "disrepectful" and such - while their proselytizing to "rude"/"disrespectful" of the non-religious positions others hold).

How in the world did you come up with that from my post?  I repeatedly said "in the real world"/"real life"---FC isn't my "real world"...is it yours?

Actually, your remarks referenced "witnessing" in both FC forums and offline.  My responses concerned such activities in FC forums since I have no evidence of the same religious adherents bothering people offline with their proselytizing.  Should one of them try that with me, in person, they'd enjoy the "real life" response even less than they do online.

[SherylsShado]

Actually, your remarks referenced "witnessing" in both FC forums and offline.  My responses concerned such activities in FC forums since I have no evidence of the same religious adherents bothering people offline with their proselytizing.  Should one of them try that with me, in person, they'd enjoy the "real life" response even less than they do online.

I gather it's a very sensitive issue for you.   Anyway, regardless of whether a person posts to "witness on purpose" or not---fact still remains that their post is a reflection of who they are, perhaps what they believe, etc.  Even if their intention was not to be "purposely be witnessing"...their post is still a "witness" to who they are.  Don't fret...your posts are a "witness" to who you are also. 

[falcon9]

I gather it's a very sensitive issue for you. 

Only insofar as such 'religious withnessing' is considered to be distasteful and unsolicited nonsense.  

Anyway, regardless of whether a person posts to "witness on purpose" or not---fact still remains that their post is a reflection of who they are, perhaps what they believe, etc.  Even if their intention was not to be "purposely be witnessing"...their post is still a "witness" to who they are.

Such "witnessing" is unnessary since they presumably know who they are and it cannot be assumed that others appreciate unsolicited "witnessing"/religious proselytizing.

  Don't fret...your posts are a "witness" to who you are also. 

The difference being that my posts are not proselytizing some religious belief, (although they do generally promote using reasoning over superstition).  The only conclusion that can be drawn from my posts would be that I'm not a superstitious person who holds specious religious beliefs.  As far as 'persuading' others to be more rational, see my sig. regarding leading a horse to water.

[SherylsShado]

While there is no requirement for religious adherents to support or defend their specious religious beliefs on D+D, (or elsewhere), failure to do so on a debate & discussion forum indicates that they merely want to make unsupported claims.

That seriously sounds like an unsupported claim to me.

  Should others want to point out that those religious claims constitute empty, (unsupported), opinions, they can accurately do so. 

I guess that's only fair since I just pointed out one of yours above.

It's the D+D and off-topic forums, not the "sharing something personal" forum.  Since the D+D forum is specifically for posting contentious subject matter, they ought to know that going in instead of expecting an uncontested free-ride to proselytize.

A Believers relationship with God is personal.  I'm not sure how things go with other religions but since other religions seem to be very quiet in the D&D, I would think it's also a personal matter with them.  Some "dare to share" and then others feel free to "smack them down".  And then you wonder why they "dodge"?  I was just offering an explanation of why, that's all.

they ought to know that going in instead of expecting an uncontested free-ride to proselytize.

They should also know that since they believe God exists, that their reward for obedience to their Lord will be in Heaven.  Also, if the Bible is true, then it says that "the unbeliever that leads others astray...will be held accountable".  (Matt. 18:7)

Believing something in spite of a lack of evidence is an aspect of gullibility however, that alone isn't enough for a diagnosis of a mental condition under current clinical standards.

 

no kidding?  That doesn't seem "odd" to you?  I mean, if it's so "crazy" for people to believe in God when there is no "substantial evidence" making Him thus "imaginary" and His followers "gullible" and incapable of having any sense of reality whatsoever then...hmmm...seems strange.

  Whereas the most which religious adherents have come up with so far is 'they believe because they have faith and they have faith because they believe' circularity.  No, they are dodging challenges to their religious beliefs because they have no valid argument for believing other than unarticulated fears.

That's a false contention because it's only based on your assumptions rather than on any actual proof.

Such "witnessing" is unnessary since they presumably know who they are and it cannot be assumed that others appreciate unsolicited "witnessing"/religious proselytizing. 

This thread is titled "Let's be Honest About Praying".  It is a religious topic.  If you have such an allergy to "witnessing" then why do you spend so much time in the religious threads in D&D?  Merely so you can complain about the Believers in there?  Or perhaps satisfy your taste for blood?  If you don't like how the Believer's post or what they post...sorry.  If the topic is about something "religious/spiritual", it kind of belongs to the ones that know what they are talking about because they're the ones that have personally experienced it.

Example:  If a thread was entitled "Let's discuss our love of flying airplanes" and I started tossing criticism towards those that actually know what it is like to fly a plane and love it, and I was always running the topic "into the ground" or challenging every post but my own ...how long would it be before you asked me what I was doing in that thread?  Wouldn't you think that those actually flying the planes would have more expertise on the subject than someone isn't into flying planes?  Sure, anyone is welcome in any part of the forum to share their thoughts, opinions, sources, etc.  For one to think though, that they are such an "expert" that they can "judge" without any real experience on the topic...is foolish.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from my posts would be that I'm not a superstitious person who holds specious religious beliefs.  As far as 'persuading' others to be more rational, see my sig. regarding leading a horse to water.

That would be your "opinion", it's not "fact".  I'm sure people have drawn many conclusions from your posts...not just one.  (Likewise for everyone else that has posted anywhere on-line).  You are a "witness" of whatever it is you're representing, your message comes through "loud & clear".

 


 

[SherylsShado]

@ falcon9:

   
 
                                                                 
                               
                        "One of these things is not like the others,
                   one of these things doesn't belong,
                  can you guess which thing is not like the others,
                 by the time we finish our song".    
                                                     
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                                                            "Seriously falcon, one of those 4 pictures (above)  doesn't belong with the others...do you know which one and WHY"?     


                                         

               

[falcon9]

While there is no requirement for religious adherents to support or defend their specious religious beliefs on D+D, (or elsewhere), failure to do so on a debate & discussion forum indicates that they merely want to make unsupported claims.

That seriously sounds like an unsupported claim to me.

Except that is is supported by numerous instances where the religious adherent spouted nonsensical claims, was challenged to support them and failed to do so by either placing the challenger on "ignore" or, simply failing to produce supporting substantiation.

Should others want to point out that those religious claims constitute empty, (unsupported), opinions, they can accurately do so.  

I guess that's only fair since I just pointed out one of yours above.

Not yet; keep looking, (if searching for such instances beats having supporting your claims - it doesn't, btw).

A Believers relationship with God is personal.

Apparently not, if they feel the urge to "witness" about it publically, to uninterested others.

I'm not sure how things go with other religions but since other religions seem to be very quiet in the D&D, I would think it's also a personal matter with them.  Some "dare to share" ...

Which constitutes proselytizing, (preaching, bible-thumping).

... and then others feel free to "smack them down".

If you mean challenge their unsupported and therefore empty proclaimations, then yes.  Both are choices.

And then you wonder why they "dodge"?  I was just offering an explanation of why, that's all.

Any 'wondering' I may do is only to the extent of discerning whether it's their fears or, general inability to respond to such challenges.  Your "explanation" omits both of these aspects, (possibly due to their not considering them out of an ego-basis).

They should also know that since they believe God exists, that their reward for obedience to their Lord will be in Heaven.

There's no evidence to support such a belief, (neither for the other one implied; that they should go about annoying others with religious proselytizing because their religion encourages such horrendous behaviour).  

Also, if the Bible is true, then it says that "the unbeliever that leads others astray...will be held accountable".  (Matt. 18:7)

The bible-thumped reference is invalid since it is based upon a source which has no evidence of being "true", (and numerous instances of contradictory religious assertions which tend to mean the opposite of being true).

That doesn't seem "odd" to you?  I mean, if it's so "crazy" for people to believe in God when there is no "substantial evidence" making Him thus "imaginary" and His followers "gullible" and incapable of having any sense of reality whatsoever then...hmmm...seems strange.

As I stated, one area of demonstrated irrationality is nominally not enough for a diagnosis of mental illness, (as far as I can determine).  Should such irrationality extend into other aspects of the irrational ones' life, there may be grounds for a psychological fitness determination, (if nothing else, to assure as far as possible that such a person is neither a danger to themselves or, others).  I'm not a clinical psychiatrist however, I can imagine the implications of determining that multiple millions of fundamentalist religious adherents may in fact, be nuts.


The most which religious adherents have come up with so far is 'they believe because they have faith and they have faith because they believe' in a circular manner.  No, they are dodging challenges to their religious beliefs because they have no valid argument for believing other than unarticulated fears.

That's a false contention because it's only based on your assumptions rather than on any actual proof.

The evidence supporting my contention is that no valid arguments/proof has been provided by the religious adherents making their specious claims and then repeatedly failing to back them up.  Should any evidence be produced, it can be examined in the light of reason, not "faith".  The contention of "fears" derives from the very unwillingness of so many religious adherents to question their 'faith', (which appears to be fearful or, stemming from an inability to do so).

This thread is titled "Let's be Honest About Praying".  It is a religious topic.  If you have such an allergy to "witnessing" then why do you spend so much time in the religious threads in D&D?

I'm opposing specious religious claims and covert/overt proselytizing.  It isn't an "allergy", it's done in order to present a pragmatic and rational viewpoint in opposition to the superstitous religious claims touted by adherents to them.  That's what 'debate' is, (even if the ones making their specious claims fail to debate them).  

Merely so you can complain about the Believers in there?  Or perhaps satisfy your taste for blood?

Neither.  It's done to oppose religious superstitions because one 'Dark Age' was quite enough.
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages."
-- Ruth Green  

If you don't like how the Believer's post or what they post...sorry.

If some fundie religious adherent doesn't like being challenged on their specious proclaimations - too bad.

If the topic is about something "religious/spiritual", it kind of belongs to the ones that know what they are talking about because they're the ones that have personally experienced it.

That's false 'reasoning' since it stems from a false premise.  For one thing, it doesn't involve any reasoning process and for another, a topic of debate & discussion "belongs" to no one.  Anyone who wants to comment, dissent, debate or discuss a topic can do so.  Claiming a subject matter on the basis of inherent bias/vested interest in it is irrational. That's a false conclusion arising from a false premise.

Example:  If a thread was entitled "Let's discuss our love of flying airplanes" and I started tossing criticism towards those that actually know what it is like to fly a plane and love it, and I was always running the topic "into the ground" or challenging every post but my own ...how long would it be before you asked me what I was doing in that thread?

Your assumption is false; I wouldn't ask what you were doing commenting on the thread, (attacking the challenger instead of the challenges).  I'd be discussing the salient points of any criticisms you raised and either concurring or, disputing them based soley on facts.  This process has not been reciprocated by the majority of religious adherents objecting to my opposing viewpoints/reasoning.

Wouldn't you think that those actually flying the planes would have more expertise on the subject than someone isn't into flying planes?

Again, it's been mentioned before that there is a qualitive difference between expressing unsupported opinions and expressing 'educated' ones, (not subjectively experiential claims as in your example concerning 'believers' - conversely, flying a plane is objectively experiential).  

Sure, anyone is welcome in any part of the forum to share their thoughts, opinions, sources, etc.  For one to think though, that they are such an "expert" that they can "judge" without any real experience on the topic...is foolish.

We've both no doubt come across non-religious persons who manifestly know more about a religious adherent's religion than the adherent does.  That's because a skeptic will tend to look at the subject to a greater depth than someone with a vested interest in thier religious belief, (e.g., by not looking too closely or, using reasoning they can avoid any psychic trauma which may result in realizing that their 'faith' rests upon nothing at all).
What's "foolish" is taking something for granted when there is no evidence to substantiate it.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from my posts would be that I'm not a superstitious person who holds specious religious beliefs.  As far as 'persuading' others to be more rational, see my sig. regarding leading a horse to water.

That would be your "opinion", it's not "fact".  I'm sure people have drawn many conclusions from your posts...not just one.  (Likewise for everyone else that has posted anywhere on-line).  You are a "witness" of whatever it is you're representing, your message comes through "loud & clear".

In order for such an "opinion", (concerning my lack of superstitions), to be shown as non-factual, evidence would have to exist to contradict it.  Similarly, the opinions considered to be "conclusions" drawn by others would have to be supported by evidence, (not subjective perceptions alone).  That said, what "message" are you implying "comes through loud and clear" from my posts?

[falcon9]

   
 
                                                                 
                               
                        "One of these things is not like the others,
                   one of these things doesn't belong,
                  can you guess which thing is not like the others,
                 by the time we finish our song".    
                                                     
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                                                           
"Seriously falcon, one of those 4 pictures (above)  doesn't belong with the others...do you know which one and WHY"?     

They all belong together as examples of beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

[SherylsShado]

They all belong together as examples of beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

 

There is something that makes one alot more different than the other three...guess again...

[falcon9]

There is something that makes one alot more different than the other three...guess again...

Since there's no evidence extant which supports any supernatural beliefs in "jesus", such a hypothetical personage belongs with the superstitious beliefs in the others. If the implication is anything other than 'just some guy' doesn't belong with creatures of myth, you might have something.

[SherylsShado]

Since there's no evidence extant which supports any supernatural beliefs in "jesus",

...getting "warmer"...

I'll be back later w/more on this, so don't think I'm "dodging".  I have been running on not much sleep all week and I can't believe it's 11:30 pm already...I gotta get 4 hours of sleep and get to work.     

[falcon9]

...getting "warmer"...

Don't mistake my replies for conceding to play your game; especially when you are snipping those replies to remove context. 

[SherylsShado]

...getting "warmer"...

Don't mistake my replies for conceding to play your game; especially when you are snipping those replies to remove context.  

I wasn't snipping your replies "to remove context" to upset you.  I believe I had mentioned that I was tired, I had 4 hours to get some sleep and needed then to get to work.  I simply didn't have the time for it all.  There were some things I was going to say to you in response to some of your comments...it's just a matter of me trying to find them now (and hopefully when I do, I'll not only remember what I wanted to say but will make sense when I do...      *sorry I'm a little "scrambled", I've had a very stressful couple of months with the "guarantee" of a few more to come, and it just seems like there is so much to deal with that I can't stay focused on anything.  Having no sleep doesn't help matters much.  I'm trying...
(I'm sure you'll agree that I can be very trying...)