How much of whatsupyall/musclemans's posts do u comprehend?

100%

I fully agree.

100% to the index of infinity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ummm, gee, I wander if MarcAC is muscleman/whatupyall in disguise....well, I guess we'll never know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hmmm

whatsupyall and muscleman do make some good points sometimes, I understand where they are coming from.

But the posts that are written entirely in CAPS is irritating.

Doctrines of beliefs or no beliefs, have nothing to do with science.

Whether it may be atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proof that you don't read others' posts and simply dump garbage on all passers-by!
I mentioned I am not an atheist at least 3 times on this thread itself!

And why did you make comments on other faiths when you had no proof/no texts that were referred?

 

Marc, that is not a good generalization, unless you know the majority of atheists. Instead say, "Of all the atheists I've encountered, they are narrowminded."

Are you saying I'm open minded or closed? A theist...hmm...I do not know what to categorize myself because I do not believe in a god(s) with divine power, rather I believe I know there must be a type of creator that is eternal. I'm more agnostic...

A god who is omnipotent, can do whatever he wants, change time, shape the universe with the snap of his finger, ruler of the universe blah blah blah, sounds too imaginary.

Generally the same as atheist. They also have only one single view, god does not exist, while theist believes they do. But the atheist could be more open minded by believing in a creator, or beginning etc.

Sounds agnostic to me.

agnostic (àg-nòs´tîk) noun
One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996.

An atheist is one who doesn't believe in God, simple as that. The atheist is almost as narrowminded as a theist, given the prerequisites.

So agnostic is the most open minded. Then atheists who deny god(s), and finally theists who believe god(s).

These are generalizations of the definition, and I believe it doesn't tell if a person, whichever they may be, open- or closed-minded.

 

Geronimo! Leaping off topic again!

Cris,

Bugger! This forum doesn't automatically do nested quotes! How am i supposed to compose a reply when i can't see what parts of my post you're referring to?

STAGE 1

Yes.

But it does. Intelligence is only the 'capacity' for acquiring knowledge and ability to reason. Wisdom is both the sum of knowledge accumulated (pretty close to your intended meaning of enlightened) and the ability to discern from that what is right, lasting, beneficial.

I indicated that having knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that the "wisdom" of all people will bring them to the same conclusions about what is best.

I was pointing out that wisdom is interlocked with enllightenment and that we have every sort of conflict because not everyone's wisdom will bring them to the same conclusions. You say "of our environment". What of other's environments? Your "we" can only be applied to that small group who agrees with you (me included to a degree). Saddam Hussein is unlikely to see a non-authoritarian approach as being useful.

Not at all. And you did say what should be taught: "what is correct" But what is correct? Different things to different people in different circumstances. Unless you believe in a universal good and universal bad. Where might those universal values come from in a godless universe?

Okay. You can revise your statement.
They still aren't likely to come to the same conclusions as you or i.

That is (pardon moi) bullshit! Never a need? You can't be serious in trying to assert that you can teach a toddler or very young child "how to think" and let her make her own decisions. My examples weren't "blanket" commands. I defined very common occurances which happen with children. If you can answer "yup" to that entire paragraph, either your lie grows, or you don't understand what i'm saying.

I go back to the hypothetical young child. A child doesn't yet have anything like the capacity or time to have taken in all your touted modern knowledge: "enlightenment". She knows nothing of the complex world except for the small bits she meets each day. To make a decision about something requires understanding of the circumstance. When a child is sick, she wants to feel better. Period. You can't convince me that this child too young to understand what a doctor really is, or a virus, or the significance of a syringe, or anything about what's making her feel bad, is going to use this great "power to think" you've supposedly endowed her with, and do what's necessary!

Here's the way i see it playing out (typical): Child feels bad; sore throat, runny nose, etc. Parent's are going to try and comfort her with reassurance and caresses, and maybe some aspirin from the cupboard.

When the sickness doesn't quickly get better, they take her to a clinic, which is very frightening. They continue to assure her and tell her that there's this guy called a doctor and he's going to see what's wrong with her and help make her feel better. Parent stands by for reassurance while doctor does his little examination. Finds out it's likely strep throat.

He brings in a syringe full of antibiotics and does the usual "this won't hurt much and it'll make you feel much better" act and she doesn't care. She knows sharp things hurt. They all work to calm her and he quickly gives her the shot. She then bursts into tears from the pain and the fear and lack of understanding as to how jabbing her in the rear relates to making her feel better.

The next week when the parents want to take her back for a follow-up. She starts crying as soon as she sees the building (and that assumes she hasn't been told where she's going beforehand). Even louder when her parents either try to convince, cajole, or just carry her inside. That lolipop the doctor gave her at the end of the last appointment is forgotten, or just didn't make up for that nasty needle. No way is she going in there because she wants to.

-------------------
Now a replay according to your theory of never comanding, and teaching only how to think: Child feels bad; sore throat, runny nose, etc. Parent's are going to try and comfort her with reassurance and caresses, and maybe some aspirin from the cupboard.

When the sickness doesn't quickly get better, the child finds herself wondering why, and thinking, "maybe it's something more serious than a cold". She goes to her mother and says, "This isn't going away. I think we'd better go to the doctor." Parent replies, "you're probably right. I'm proud of you for deciding that." Child eagerly jumps into the car and they drive to the clinic where they walk calmly in. Parent stands by for reassurance while doctor does his little examination. Finds out it's likely strep throat. Tells them. The child thinks, "crap, i hate shots. But strep is pretty dangerous." Grits her teeth.

Doc brings in a syringe full of antibiotics and begins the usual "this won't hurt much and it'll make you get better" act but she interrupts and says, "okay, go ahead." He leisurely gives her the shot. She cries a little but she's thinking "these yucky symptoms should at least clear up now." They return home.

The next week when it's time for her follow-up and her parents say, "We have to go back to Dr. Smith so he can make sure you're completely well. She feels better so she trots out to the car and they drive to the clinic. She solemnly but calmly walks in without any pressuring. Doctor checks her out and says everything's fine and they can go. When the doctor goes to hand her a lolipop, she thinks to herself, "i don't think those empty calories are going to be good for me. I don't want to get fat." So she tells him no thanks and they leave.

--------------------------
Gimme a break! No little child as young as i've said thinks anything like that, and certainly isn't yet developed to the point where she knows about any of those scientific relationships, or strep, or really what a doctor is (before going to one). She doesn't yet have the capacity for abstract concepts about her getting jabbed with a painful needle having anything to do with making her feel better or curing this sickness. That ability won't develope for a couple more years at least.

You really think that a small child can understand logic and rational analysis and act against her survival instincts and fears by taking an action that scares her because it's going to benefit her in some future time?!

Pshah!

I'd agree to some extent. But "NEVER" haveing to command or compel? If small children were allowed to make all their own decisions they'd never live to see puberty, let alone survive it.

Even somewhat older kids will attempt all kinds of things in this learning process you describe that could injure or potentially kill them. In fact, they will do so no matter what a parent does. All a parent can do is try to minimize the mistakes their children make which could be seriously dangerous. Sometime they'll get a huge fascination with fire. They might decide to jump from a dangerous height just to test their ability because it doesn't "look" that high. They'll attempt projects that are far beyond their capacity. And without "some" outright commands and prohibitions and rules they'll not only be involved in a far greater number of dangerous activities, but most likely have far less direction and ambition.

All this is so rediculously obvious i can't believe i'm writing it.

If that's what you think of my post then you've completely misunderstood what i said. This is NOTHING to do with standards or your method of parenting. I can't judge that. As you say, i can't judge anything about you beyond what you write because i don't know you.

It's all about what you really said by putting your sentences together the way you did. It has to do with the scientific facts of child developement, the way the brain works, the amount of information that's required to make anything like a "wise" decision, the mental development and physical presence necessary to take on certain responsibilities.

Absolutely incorrect! As i said. The opposite of that first sentence is true. You said yourself you NEVER do that.

I wasn't referring to anything about my philosophy, or even authoritarianism. It was about the literal meanings of what your sentences said. No politics. No philosophies. No sociology experiments. It was all about what you said. I, myself think parents who are all strict and expect kids to do what they say because they said it are going to screw a kid up no end, or at the very least limit him.

When i delved into things relating to this area, i only meant that with no guidance, kids are quite likely to become seriously dead.

As far as i knew i wasn't expressing any attitude. I was talking about meaning! About how your words were telling me your family is unencumbered by the laws of biology and physics.

For example:

Not a thing in that paragraph about authoritarianism OR your 'let them learn' approach. I'm simply using a lot of anecdotes to make the point i stated in the previous paragraph to that one: that no matter what people have been taught or even what they know to be true from observation or experience will guarantee that they make the best (wisest) decision.

Even with the volumes of crud i wrote, you seem to have read a great deal more. You took a very defensive stance on your beliefs, understandably. But I wasn't attacking them. I was commenting on the litteral meaning of some of the things you wrote: i.e. your writing.

WHOA! HOLD ON!

What we've got here...is a failure to communicate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think what's going on is starting to seep into me brain. See if ye think i'm right.

1) I decided to comment on some things to tune up my vocabulary, warm up my typing fingers, and charge up the ole logic box because i'm out of practice at this debate sort of stuff and didn't want to get in over my head right off.

2) I took some paltry little mouse droppings from your post and as practice, wrote an encyclopaedia about them.

3) You read this huge encyclopaedia and decided that no one would write that huge tome about stupid mouse droppings and interpreted it instead as being some big devious attack on you or your beliefs.

4) You defended your beliefs by presenting the case for my being unable to comprehend them. In doing so you unknowingly seemed to be claiming you know nothing about the the mouse droppings.

5) I was absolutely stupified that you could still be asserting your lack of knowledge about the mouse droppings after reading the huge encyclopaedia, so i started off this post trying even harder; being even more specific; providing so much more data on mouse droppings.

It seems to me that while i was talking about a few teensy literal misteps in your writing, you were convinced i was talking about the essence of your belief system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If i'm right then this is too funny because it's the sheer length and form of my relatively simple post that set off this response that was giving me the impression that you must be right out of your mind!

You didn't really mean those unequivocal absolutes did you? I took never to mean precisely never. And all that junk i wrote about obedience. You snipped it down in your reply and said some things about it being time consuming in the beginning and that i just didn't seem to understand.

But you didn't understand ME. I thought i was making it clear with all that lengthy blather about obedience for instance, when perhaps i was confusing it.

Stay with with me here a bit longer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Teaching them is what i was talking about with those examples. You had said "NEVER demanded". How can i put this?...

very young child + teaching only how to think + never demanding = certain injury

because as i tried to get across in that paragraph on obedience, the child would be injured or dead before learning what you were trying to teach.

i.e. You teach this very small child how to think things out instead of specific "don't ___'s". The child doesn't yet have a wide range of of experience or knowledge. She encounters a new situation which is beyond her understanding so she works it out as best she can. Say she decides to taste some of that pretty blue juice in the bottle on the table. She doesn't know it's windex or that it's toxic.

So you happen to look over just as she's about to take a gulp. Now here's my point: If you truly mean you NEVER demand anything, and never is literal, then you're saying you wouldn't "demand" that she stop and set the bottle down!
(Same as my polluted water story.)

If you only TEACH then you're going to have to rush over and teach her about windex before she takes that swallow because that word NEVER disallows the posibility of you yelling, "Stop! Don't drink that!" She's a second from taking the swallow, so the possibility of TEACHING her not to drink it is nonsense, and she's made her decision; a bad one.

NOW: Would you not DEMAND that she stop?

That's all i'm saying is don't use absolutes like NEVER unless you mean it. You didn't qualify some absolute statements and in a debate sort of situation perfectionistic people like me are apt to take them as literal and get highly confused.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Been a strange one,
Chromatose

PS. You replied: Note I specifically said Christian STYLE, not Christian parents. And here Christian style is biblical authoritarianism. Where is "here". Your original post said nothing about 'Christian style' meaning biblical authoritarianism so it sounded like a categorization. "Yes, i eat strictly Christian style fried chicken."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Chroma,

Way too much over analysis and too many hypotheticals.

The original issue was about Christianity being driven by fear. My point was to illustrate that teaching the reason behind a request is more valuable than simply giving commands to be obeyed without question or because of a threat.

Whether you believe my lifestyle or not is not important providing you understand the illustration.

With Christianity there is the threat of hell and it seems reasonable to believe that many Christians follow the commands of their religion because they firmly believe they will go to hell otherwise. The exit from the dilemma is to offer the saving concept of Jesus so that past transgressions, that would have resulted in hell otherwise, can be removed from the list.

Other Christians argue that they are Christian because of the loving nature of God etc.

But why have the fear of hell in the first place? While you might not have understood my lifestyle approach in emphasizing to my children the reasons for something rather than just commanding them, surely the same could not be true for an omnipotent god. His ability to teach and to provide understanding must far exceed anything I could do for my kids. Why then does he need hell?

Surely with his awesome power there should be no reason why anyone could fail if he taught correctly.

 

Vienna

I accept your concession.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thor

I have two theories. Either muscleman is smurfing with about four aliases, or he's called in buddies to parrot him in an attempt at credibility. It could also be a combination of the above.

 

For Cris, AND ACTUALLY ON YOUR TOPIC (mostly)

Beautiful. After my concession and simplification at the last, no less.
Overanalysis. Overanalysis?! :bugeye: "Teach people how to think" you say. But don't go too far, you certainly wouldn't want to be too specific or be too clear on things. Fine, fine. Spiffy. I'll be good and stick to the obvious and let the specifics be blurry. However, i stick to my hypothetical situations. Such little stories are considered an excellent way to illustrate points!

You don't pay very close attention, i guess. I began in my original post by saying that i wasn't really going to comment on your actual topic because i didn't know enough about what was being discussed yet, or who believed what.

I take it you missed both my statements that i do believe it to be quite reasonable. 6 zillion words to say that i was referring to specificity problems in your writing making some parts inherently untrue, and not your belief, and you still seem to think i'm questioning your lifestyle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And i picked your message because you seemed to know how to analize and to express things well. Might you rather have me make general "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS" statements like mr. muscle?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's probably somewhere in the neighborhood for most. I don't know all THAT much about it. The form of Christianity i know (the fastest growing one) has no hell for all practical purposes and virtually nothing to do with fear other than the everyday ordinary mortal sort. Purposes and reasons are much clearer, yet many Christians claim that we aren't, because we don't believe a certain subset of very confusing often contradictory beliefs that the rest of the denominations do, as if that's any kind of argument. They all have their differences and Jesus is still at the center of things with us. It's really quite silly.

Fits what i know. Everyone has great potential because God created, and loves everyone, and helps those who do their best and ask; i.e. pray.

The simple answer is someplace to send those who actively go against what he teaches. He doesn't force anybody to accept the teachings. Just teaches, as you say things should be.

Since the version of hell i'm familiar with is vastly different from the fire and brimstone bit or most denominations, my explaining it wouldn't make sense given out of the context of the other surrounding beliefs.

Wokay, i'll just stick my toe in here a bit. (always keep in mind that what i say may not apply to most of christianity, and may not be absolutely 100% correct because i'm not a religious schollar or even a regular attendee, but i do know the basics just fine)

First, your statement is absolutely correct. Anybody who follows precisely what he teaches cannot go wrong because he teaches everything that's needed to succeed and lends a hand to those who try their absolute best to be as like the perfection of Jesus as possible, and follow the teachings!

I think, though, that your definition of success/failure is a little different than what i'm referring to.

My basic understanding:

Mortality is a test of ourselves. How well you follow God's words and emulate Jesus' perfection, and hence treat others and conduct yourself, determines your degree of exaltation in the next life. Mortality sorts out individuals according to who has the mettle to do right under all circumstances (including nasty ones). The "judgement" is partially of oneself and partially a kind of sorting process by God who, being omnipotent, can mete out perfect justice. The key is free agency.

Now i may not have this next part absolutely correct, but this how i remember it.

Prior to the creation of the world, there was a type of "war" in heaven.
God proposed to all the spirit children, and to his direct children, Jesus and Satan, the plan of testing people in mortality, where they would be cut off from him briefly. Satan proposed that everyone just be caused to do everything right by allowing no wrong choices.

God nixed the plan. Jesus was loyal and said basically "i'll do what you wish". Satan became angry and said he was going to cause all the mortals to fail and was banished from heaven along with 1/3 "the host of heaven" who agreed with him, to be spirits in darkness forever. (and i'm thinking that light is used as a metaphor for truth and synonymous with being in God's presence, since he's the source of truth.)

So the fear for us is not hell pre se, but Satan's temptations to go against, and works to confuse the teachings of God and hence end up in a less desireable place in the afterlife.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's a start. That any more sensible to you? (as religions go, if you don't believe)

 

Chroma,

I love your eloquence and your style, that is very refreshing here, and perhaps you are a perfectionist. But I detect a similarity between us, because, perhaps our birthdays are 3 days apart. I’ve never been sure about astrology, but there are times when I wonder if it does have some truth. But there were some things you said of me that I know I have said of others. The issue of NEVER, for example, I even have an oft quoted story about the certainty that NEVER and ALWAYS are usually never true, and the way that children will often quote things as the ‘worstest’ and the ‘bestest’, when really the truth is somewhere in between.

I like black or white answers and am always very reluctant to compromise, but I am painfully aware that most things are gray.

My management style is to always try to keep everyone focused and on topic, so forgive me for curtailing our discussion and especially since you had put so much effort into it, but it wasn’t on topic and I had never intended for a fairly minor illustration to become a deep analysis of my lifestyle.

Stick around if you can, I think you could become popular here.

Best regards
Cris

 

I shudder to say it but I must agree with this single statement. Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science has no evidence for or against God. The most that can be said is that we have not yet found any evidence that would indicate that there is a God.

Of course, you're wrong about logic. It is not logically valid to assert a conclusion without evidence or valid logical argument. As of yet (and I have studied this topic rather thoroughly) I have seen no argument that necessitates God, which reduces the concept to an invalidated hypothesis. An atheist does not believe in God because there is no reason to believe in God.

~Raithere

 

We should just accept the fact that this guy isn't gonna reply to our posts because in short, he's an ass

 

I have noticed that some people may agree with muscleman may have some sense. YET people that like what he says are just as inarticulate as him (minus the caps).

Vienna!

Are you religious? I haven't seen anything you've said that has been glaringly stupid, so I wonder what this stuff against you is.

I love to hate how Thiests can either ignore that religion is going out of fasion OR say that Satan is leading people astray... Such crap.

 

French,

Vienna is OK. I think on both sides of the debate if the posts are civilized then the responses are also usually civilized. Vienna tends to respond in kind.

Watsupmuscle, on the other hand doesn’t respond to posts but simply asserts what he wants to say and often with a considerable abusive tone. There is no sign of respect for others and certainly no respect for the ideas of others. It is unfortunate that he claims to be Christian, but I have friends who are Christian and I am sure would not recognize him as such.

Responding to whatsupman is as productive as talking to a brick wall. I’ve given up as it seems like a waste of time. I’d rather post to others who are interested in intelligent conversation.

 

YOU WANDER

"... I wander..." is right. Not wonder.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Responding to whatsupman is as productive as talking to a brick wall."

Hey, don't tell me this. I think he hates me more than anyone else on this site!

""... I wander..." is right. Not wonder."

Sorry, my mistake...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Explains the narrow-mindedness

 

"I have an IQ as big as the number of subatomic particles in the universe plus 1, and i think you are all narrow minded"

God

 

Funniest yet...

Still laughing... You know how I interpret that right? Appreciate some humour man.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My reply: Meh!!