God is a Fake

[falcon9]

 
[Sheryls quote]No, I understood that you were saying choosing atheism and believing there is no God is the same as being rational and not believing the leprechauns and fairies exist but it isn't.  Why?  
Because I don't believe that leprechauns and fairies exist either so there's nothing wrong with my "rationality".  
 (And don't say I have "selective rationality" either because the moment someone starts selecting what they are going or not going to be "rational" about, they have "selective rationality". Which puts us on equal ground until we find our bodies six-feet under it and/or our souls on their way to meet their Maker.)

[/quote]

We wouldn't be on equal ground because what you have is selective irrationality for your beliefs.

Edit: Darn. Falcon beat me to a reply!

I've often had the same thought when you post before I've read the responses.  Apparently, the notion that "selective rationality" inherently includes "selective irrationality" needed emphasis.

[SherylsShado]

Funny thing guys (falcon/Falconer)... I was reading the first response to my last post and was just about to ask Falconer02 why HE was twisting my words around to "fit his purpose" and then...I seen the response was from falcon09.   My reaction to that, of course,  was one of "non-surprise".
So, falcon09...I would say to you that if you have to "butcher" someone else's post that badly to "prove" your point,  you are trying way too hard and there's something wrong with that picture.

[falcon9]

So, falcon09...I would say to you that if you have to "butcher" someone else's post that badly to "prove" your point,  you are trying way too hard and there's something wrong with that picture.

Your own words were quoted in context.  How is that 'butchering' your post?  From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise.  It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so. 

Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?

[SherylsShado]

Your own words were quoted in context.  How is that 'butchering' your post?  From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise.  It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so. 

Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?

  Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again.  I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".) 
  For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be".  That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon".    So NOT cool.

[falcon9]

I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic" ...

And yet, you did.  That's okay though, I still remember the original context presented and wasn't actually diverted from it.  You know, the one about selective rationality/irrationality?

... unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".)  

The assumption that my word usage is an attempt to "intimidate" would be a perceptual error; it is merely how I normally write, (as numerous other posts show).

 For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions ...

In what way are interjected replies "assumptions"?

... in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning ...

On the contrary, I will often seek clarification if a sentence is vague or otherwise unclear.  If it doesn't appear to be so, a response is made based upon the meanings of the words responded to, (without the alleged "attempt to change their meaning").  If you have evidence which supports your allegation, surely you can quote it in context.

... if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be".  That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon".   So NOT cool.

Dissenting points of view are precisely encompassed by D+D, ("Debate + Discussion"), and thereby much 'cooler' than making allegations supporting by nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion, (whereas substantiated opinion differs in that regard and insofar as dissenting with assertions which constitute 'the world according to irrationality').

[jcribb16]

Your own words were quoted in context.  How is that 'butchering' your post?  From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise.  It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so. 

Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?

  Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again.  I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".) 
  For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be".  That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon".    So NOT cool.

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.  Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.   

[Falconer02]

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.

"I can't make any sense of my blind faith-based beliefs to others, so I'll just complain about Falcon9 for using big words too much! It's soooooo annoying!"

Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again

Welcome...to DEBATE AND DISCUSS!!!
*cue Jurassic Park theme*

At this point I'm just willing to keep this thread going as some sort of immortal shrine to that ol' crazy individual who started it.

[pattersondebra]

I heard that people that dont believe in God will go to hell when they die. If this is true how can someone go to hell when they dont even know there is a god to believe in?

[falcon9]

I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions. 

Where was the "open" portion of reptitious bible-thumping of blind faith in lieu of reasoning?  Since at least two, (sometimes more people joined in at various points), participated in discussions.  Therefore, two-sided, (and three-cornered and more), discussions were had until it apparently 'dawned' on several 'thumpers that blind faith cannot overcome pragmatic reasoning.

The results are always "the world according to him." 

This is as opposed to 'the world according to various vague religious beliefs', eh?

That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith ...

If such people are 'free' to "share their faith", opposing viewpoints have an equal freedom of dissent.

Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc. 

This is a public forum hosted by FC which is entitled "Debate + Discussion".  As such, the 'disclaimer' heading the subforum urges caution as "divisive" subjects may be contained within it.  Unsubstantiated and mis-attributed claims concerning religious beliefs are open to debate & discussion, (especially in this subforum). 

Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.   

An expectation of unquestioned religious promotions on D+D is an unreasonable one, (nor is particularly required that dissenting views be implicitly 'silenced' by religious fundamentalism).  As Admin suggested previously, it's easier on the faint of heart and weak of conviction to simply use the "ignore" function and cover their eyes before they accidentally realize that they were blinded by the 'light'.

[jcribb16]

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown

[falcon9]

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.

"I can't make any sense of my blind faith-based beliefs to others, so I'll just complain about Falcon9 for using big words too much! It's soooooo annoying!"

*chuckle*  Did you omit the "it's uncomfortable to question those faith-based beliefs using reasoning and much, much easier to complain that they're being questioned instead?"

Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again

Welcome...to DEBATE AND DISCUSS!!!
*cue Jurassic Park theme*

Are you getting the impression that specious religious beliefs aren't open to debate & discussion if one is a believer?

At this point I'm just willing to keep this thread going as some sort of immortal shrine to that ol' crazy individual who started it.

Everytime I assumed this thread was lapsing into the mists of time, someone, (newbie or not), would resurrect it from near death.  It's as if it were some sort of zombie thread that would seem to require the standard solution to 'zombies'.

[falcon9]

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does. - Unknown

If your behavior stems from specious beliefs, you are likely none the better for them. - unknown

[falcon9]

I heard that people that dont believe in God will go to hell when they die.

Some religious faith's followers may believe that however, such a belief has no basis in evidence.

If this is true how can someone go to hell when they dont even know there is a god to believe in?

Since there is no evidence whatsoever that this is "true", a belief or disbelief in any deity has no substantive bearing on an equally insubtantive belief in "hell".  A 'disbelief' in such things constitutes not believing in that which lacks supporting evidence, (in much the same way as a specious allegation in a court of law which lacks supporting evidence will be dismissed due to such a lack).

[sammywantsya]

Your own words were quoted in context.  How is that 'butchering' your post?  From that post, it appeared as though you were attempting to preempt a reply concerning selective rationality, (and/or selective irrationality), without actually refuting the premise.  It wasn't difficult to substantiate the point concerning such selectivity since two different respondants were able to succinctly do so. 

Were you planning on refuting the selective rationality/irrationality point in context or, going with a diversionary tactic instead?

  Actually, I had only planned on explaining to Falconer02 how his post didn't "go over my head", then next I was planning on responding to magicguy...but here you go again.  I didn't have any plans to "go with a diversionary tactic", unlike you trying to intimidate with "big words" (FYI, I'm so not intimidated by "big words".) 
  For some reason, you think you have to pick apart NUMEROUS posts on this forum and insert your own assumptions in between everyone else's sentences in an attempt to change their meaning if the post doesn't agree with exactly how you "perceive things to be".  That's not d&d but rather "the world according to falcon".    So NOT cool.

I agree with you here about this.  I have been through the very same trying to have open and 2-sided discussions.  The results are always "the world according to him."  That's why so many new people who come in and want to share their faith end up leaving because of only "his worldly answers" being the only acceptable answers, according to him, with the same big words being used over and over.  Sometimes, people just want to share about what God has done for them or ask a question about an issue that pertains to God or any other type religion, etc.  Many reply who can relate to their issue or question, because of knowing God, or a different religion, only to have this same other thing happen again and again.   

exactly proven point.. it takes a real man to man up and say that there no different then anyone else... im tired of theses so called hypocrites here but it also makes me laugh because they been doing this over a year... why cant we have a normal D&D discussion instead of making pple stupid here... if you see the rest of falcons post its all religion he cant post something thats not off topic just religion...

[falcon9]

exactly proven point..

Exactly which point was "proven"?  That the 'believers' don't like their beliefs being questioned, either by others or themselves?

it takes a real man to man up and say that there no different then anyone else...

People are different; not just superficially but, within.  It takes an honest person, (male or female), to discern what those differences mean instead of trying to lump everyone together into some implicit 'oneness'.

im tired of theses so called hypocrites here but it also makes me laugh because they been doing this over a year...

If you're referring to the hypocrisy of religionists, I agree because some of them have demonstrated it.  If you're implying otherwise, you've failed to demonstrate examples to support such an assertion.

why cant we have a normal D&D discussion instead of making pple stupid here... if you see the rest of falcons post its all religion he cant post something thats not off topic just religion...

Perhaps you've been 'blinded by the light' if you are unable to see hundreds of other posts made which had nothing to do with religion.  Aside from that, all responses to religious topics have been just that - responses, (that is, religious topics begun or religious comments made have been discussed & debated).  Now that your specious allegation has been refuted, no doubt your further input should not be awaited, (because you apparently feel that such a discussion would be "making pple stupid here")?