Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

topal63 wrote:

God is a possibility, regardless whether or not any particular belief about it, as a being, holds true. There are unsolved mysteries existing in this reality. At least two or three: why is there anything at all, what is consciousness in itself and what would God be if there is such a thing; being.
Why does there have to be any reason for anything all? That to me is one of the great weaknesses in human thinking in my opinion - we cannot handle the idea of something not having a beginning or an end, or a raison d'etre. I mean who exactly said there has to be a meaning to all this? As regards consciousness and the idea of a soul and all that jazz, well one could just say it's all just electrical activity in the brain...have you ever tried to have a conversation with a heavily brain damaged patient? Not a whole lot of consciousness going on there i.e. take away the brain activity and you take away the personality and consciousness. It's no more wondrous than any other physiological phenomenon, just a lot more complex and harder to fully understand.

topal63 wrote:

You denounce the whole of it; religion; yet you don't really understand it. Fine it's not for you. Fine Biblical Genesis is a literal impossibility, I agree. But, does that mean its' symbolic truths are all false? Every one? Or, that "image" could even mean an immaterial spirit being with a primate's face? You focus on literally interpreted absurdities then decry the whole of it is equal to the stupid ad hoc ad hominen label "conspiracy theory." The label is as unjust as the equating of a wide range of ideas to just one other label "religion."
I understand as much about religion as the next person thank you very much - I was raised a catholic in the days when Ireland was still quite conservative and had to sit through mandatory religion class all the way through school; I have sat and read through the bible many times and have arrived at my current frame of mind after years of deliberation so don't just write me off as some dude who "just doesn't get it". My beef with religion in this thread relates in particular to branches of religion that try to fight their case on the grounds of science and facts when in fact their "evidence" and "facts" share the same traits as those put forward by conspiracy theorists. No concrete evidence is ever put forward in the name of religion, just allusions and faith-based half truths...in any other topic of debate such an argumentative technique would be blown out of the water but religion gets a free pass for some reason.

topal63 wrote:

Non-religious people, even atheists, ponder questions, ideals, consider and reflect/meditate about; on or upon; the mystery of being; existence.
I know they do, it's called philosophy and it's something I have a great interest in...try reading some Nietzsche, his thoughts would be particularly relevant to this topic.

topal63 wrote:

Am I to assume Buddhism and every form of Hinduism is contained in your assumption of it as a conspiracy theory. Am I to assume the Gnostic Christian is one and the same as a Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim, just another brainwashed idiot believing in a conspiracy theory?
I have read a fair bit on Buddhism and I have to say that of all the faiths it is the closest to my own philosophy on life. Buddhism places a lot of the focus on the individual and how they fit in to the world around them. It stresses the fact that we are actually all part of the one great cosmos i.e. we were all forged in the furnace of the sun and the idea of the self is, in a sense, illusory. Buddhism works quite well as a philosophy without the need for a God figure, you could strip it right down and still be left with a sound idea.

topal63 wrote:

It's probably a hard thing for a Christian to elaborate on, as example, the idea of grace. Precision is probably difficult to achieve with words when saying they; or one; feels they sense and/or see grace in the world and in others and that emanates; flows; from an unseen force. They feel that they can see it - even if it's hard to describe. Are they right? Or, is it just a man acting (good) on his own accord singularly and disconnected based upon what he knows, even if what he knows is utterly untrue in a scientific/historical sense? We may or may not be disconnected consciousness beings, I wouldn't know, consciousness is an elusive mystery in origin. There is an ecumenical idea that exists - it translates loosely into trying to understand different religions, albeit from a Christian perspective (this is an attempt and that is important). Combine that with this: that the Catholics know that evolution is true. In their inner scholarly circles they have modified their theologies of God the creator, not being creator of that specific specie of toad or insect or whatnot, but rather as creator in relation to matter and space-time (the why is there anything at all?). Don't assume the interpretations of (or theologies surrounding) beloved, ancient or assumed to be "revealed" scripture are static - they aren't. When dealing with an utter mystery - all worldviews thereupon are an interpretation (semiotic and semantic), although some specific-ones can be reasonably ruled out (i.e. a fundamentalist literal overly specific; anti-scientific; anti-knowable-truth; one).
Forget about all the absurd stuff in the ancient texts of all the faiths, when you get down to the nitty gritty there is still NO ACTUAL MEASURABLE PROOF in support of the existence God...not one scrap over the entire course of human history.

topal63 wrote:

My general feeling is that one-day the Christian (or insert another religion here if you like) worldview will be re-interpreted and refocused away from absurd theologies and certain-faith altogether. They speak of love, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, acceptance, belonging (baptized into a connected community) and grace - maybe one day that is what the-many who call themselves Christian will stand for; and shy away from the literal or old theologies (as if suffering actually entered the world through an Adam that never existed until a latter grace through crucifixion redeemed us. O' the travesty of errors contained in this dogma).
Religion is an artefact from mankind's past, it was a very convenient and effective way of ensuring the less critical thinking members of society adhered to "the social contract" that has enabled mankind to advance so dramatically when compared with the animal kingdom. Religion effectively dresses "the social contract" up in a fairy tale or myth (for want of a better term), complete with an angry bad guy Devil-figure who will punish those who do not follow the rules and a good guy God-figure who will reward anyone who follows the rules. It is obvious, even from this thread alone, that society is not ready to give religion up yet but it is my hope, and my sincere belief, that the day will come when religion will have done its job and will take its rightful place in the history books.

topal63 wrote:

Part of what I say must seem obnoxious from a devout perspective; a perspective that is certain. Part of what I say must seem conciliatory and thus obnoxious from a certain atheistic perspective. My only defense is I am not certain about abstract ideals, concepts or mysteries - as those are very different from specific things that are knowable.
Not at all, you have been quite articulate in your thinking and in your points and I commend you for that. However, I must say that none of your points have really swayed my opinion that the formation of religious belief follows a similar path to the "belief" formed by a conspiracy theorist. Sorry

Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-19 18:26:33)

Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While the argumentative techniques may be similar, there is a distinct difference.

Religion is belief in the absence of proof.

Conspiracy theorists believe DESPITE proof to the contrary.
Not necessarily, many conspiracy theories are built on only a small amount of supposed truth and speculation - like conspiracy theories about supposed new world orders that operate behind the scenes of powerful Governments or aliens being kept inside area 51. That could be described as belief in the absence of proof, could it not?
It could be...right up until contradictory proof is offered up. Then the conspiracy theorists see the proof against the conspiracy as part of the conspiracy, feeding their belief even more. Hence, belief DESPITE proof to the contrary.

I was speaking in general terms. There are always "not necessarily" moments in any discussion of this type. Specific instances of miracles or natural events that, at the time, were deemed to be supernatural that we know now to have natural or scientific explanations. The bigger picture WRT religion is whether the deity(ies) being worshipped actually exist. That can be neither proven nor disproven based on empirical evidence. In the case of a conspiracy (does it actually exist), that can be proven or disproven based on empirical evidence.

To date, no proof has been put forward that God does not exist. Mostly because it is near (if not entirely) impossible to prove a negative.

That's the significant difference: It is possible to prove that conspiracies do not exist. It is not possible to prove that God does not exist.
It has never been proven that unicorns don't exist...are you leaving the door open on that one too?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Not necessarily, many conspiracy theories are built on only a small amount of supposed truth and speculation - like conspiracy theories about supposed new world orders that operate behind the scenes of powerful Governments or aliens being kept inside area 51. That could be described as belief in the absence of proof, could it not?
It could be...right up until contradictory proof is offered up. Then the conspiracy theorists see the proof against the conspiracy as part of the conspiracy, feeding their belief even more. Hence, belief DESPITE proof to the contrary.

I was speaking in general terms. There are always "not necessarily" moments in any discussion of this type. Specific instances of miracles or natural events that, at the time, were deemed to be supernatural that we know now to have natural or scientific explanations. The bigger picture WRT religion is whether the deity(ies) being worshipped actually exist. That can be neither proven nor disproven based on empirical evidence. In the case of a conspiracy (does it actually exist), that can be proven or disproven based on empirical evidence.

To date, no proof has been put forward that God does not exist. Mostly because it is near (if not entirely) impossible to prove a negative.

That's the significant difference: It is possible to prove that conspiracies do not exist. It is not possible to prove that God does not exist.
It has never been proven that unicorns don't exist...are you leaving the door open on that one too?
Why not? How many species that science has claimed are extinct have been found not to be so?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:


It could be...right up until contradictory proof is offered up. Then the conspiracy theorists see the proof against the conspiracy as part of the conspiracy, feeding their belief even more. Hence, belief DESPITE proof to the contrary.

I was speaking in general terms. There are always "not necessarily" moments in any discussion of this type. Specific instances of miracles or natural events that, at the time, were deemed to be supernatural that we know now to have natural or scientific explanations. The bigger picture WRT religion is whether the deity(ies) being worshipped actually exist. That can be neither proven nor disproven based on empirical evidence. In the case of a conspiracy (does it actually exist), that can be proven or disproven based on empirical evidence.

To date, no proof has been put forward that God does not exist. Mostly because it is near (if not entirely) impossible to prove a negative.

That's the significant difference: It is possible to prove that conspiracies do not exist. It is not possible to prove that God does not exist.
It has never been proven that unicorns don't exist...are you leaving the door open on that one too?
Why not? How many species that science has claimed are extinct have been found not to be so?
Cool...we'll throw in leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch and the Banshee while we're at it.
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

IRONCHEF wrote:

I like the apparent "FACT" that 95% of the world population (throughout time) are having a psychological fit and are simply conjuring the millions and millions of "coincidences" and outright evidences of nothing!

I literally could prove God's existence (and I probably have attempted it several times in several different ways on this forum), but using the same logic mentioned above that it's impossible to "convince" religionists of their folly, likewise you non-believers would never see the proof.  So as with all the threads of this nature that come up weekly, there is a complete impasse...one side cannot see the other side's reasoning, sadly.  However, as evidenced in some PMs I've received and similar experiences I've had in other places, there's always a handful of people with the ability to "honestly" explore and discover the truth of things by asking.  And for what it's worth, knowing one way or the other about this "simple" topic, is very, very easy...don't even have to spend time googling scientific or religious articles and theories and pretend that you know it all.  Sadly, it's not something discovered on a public forum..especially this one where maturity varies so drastically.
You "literally could prove god's existence"?

Doubtful. Men have attempted to do so for a great deal of time, and none have done so. It is foolish to say so, if not outright lying.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Drakef wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

I like the apparent "FACT" that 95% of the world population (throughout time) are having a psychological fit and are simply conjuring the millions and millions of "coincidences" and outright evidences of nothing!

I literally could prove God's existence (and I probably have attempted it several times in several different ways on this forum), but using the same logic mentioned above that it's impossible to "convince" religionists of their folly, likewise you non-believers would never see the proof.  So as with all the threads of this nature that come up weekly, there is a complete impasse...one side cannot see the other side's reasoning, sadly.  However, as evidenced in some PMs I've received and similar experiences I've had in other places, there's always a handful of people with the ability to "honestly" explore and discover the truth of things by asking.  And for what it's worth, knowing one way or the other about this "simple" topic, is very, very easy...don't even have to spend time googling scientific or religious articles and theories and pretend that you know it all.  Sadly, it's not something discovered on a public forum..especially this one where maturity varies so drastically.
You "literally could prove god's existence"?

Doubtful. Men have attempted to do so for a great deal of time, and none have done so. It is foolish to say so, if not outright lying.
It would sure be the death knell of this thread if he could!

Braddock wrote:

Waiter...Can I have some salt for these words please?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-19 18:49:09)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6461|Northern California
Nope, wouldn't matter if I could prove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also proved it.  For that matter, it is not something that should be proven since "proving it" is contrary to the system of how faith works.  I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6686
God is real.... and he loves all of us...
Love is the answer
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6507|Long Island, New York

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

God is real.... and he loves all of us...
But if you disobey him, it's eternal burning and hellfire for yoooooooooou!

A bit of a takeoff on George Carlin, I suppose.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6686
no... that's the human interpretation...  We have free will to be good or bad... everyone knows when they are doing something good or bad...
you can't live a life of being drunk... doing drugs... womanizing... hurting other people and have a fulfilling life... many have tried...none have succeeded...

You help other people and encourage them to be what they can be... and realize true happiness is giving and helping others...(that doesn't include people that take advantage of that)...    I believe there is a God... and it makes me laugh when anti relgious people get so worked up trying to prove that religion is fake and a joke and evil...lol...    If it gives people comfort... how can that be bad...?

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2008-08-19 22:06:39)

Love is the answer
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6507|Long Island, New York

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

no... that's the human interpretation...  We have free will to be good or bad... everyone knows when they are doing something good or bad...
you can't live a life of being drunk... doing drugs... womanizing... hurting other people and have a fulfilling life... many have tried...none have succeeded...

You help other people and encourage them to be what they can be... and realize true happiness is giving and helping others...(that doesn't include people that take advantage of that)...    I believe there is a God... and it makes me laugh when anti relgious people get so worked up trying to prove that religion is fake and a joke and evil...lol...    If it gives people comfort... how can that be bad...?
I'm religious, dude. I was half joking. I practice reform Judaism which doesn't believe in hell. I'm also one of those people that interprets the Torah for himself. Just like how I believe in Evolution.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6686

Poseidon wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

no... that's the human interpretation...  We have free will to be good or bad... everyone knows when they are doing something good or bad...
you can't live a life of being drunk... doing drugs... womanizing... hurting other people and have a fulfilling life... many have tried...none have succeeded...

You help other people and encourage them to be what they can be... and realize true happiness is giving and helping others...(that doesn't include people that take advantage of that)...    I believe there is a God... and it makes me laugh when anti relgious people get so worked up trying to prove that religion is fake and a joke and evil...lol...    If it gives people comfort... how can that be bad...?
I'm religious, dude. I was half joking. I practice reform Judaism which doesn't believe in hell. I'm also one of those people that interprets the Torah for himself. Just like how I believe in Evolution.
That's cool... i didn't mean you, about being non religious...
Love is the answer
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

IRONCHEF wrote:

Nope, wouldn't matter if I could prove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also proved it.  For that matter, it is not something that should be proven since "proving it" is contrary to the system of how faith works.  I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.
It wouldn't matter if I could disprove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also disproved it. For that matter, it is not something that should be disproven since we don't need to disprove the tooth fairy or unicorns. I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.

Also, I can say arrogant things such as this and pretend I'm right.

I can understand a theist, but you look fairly nutty trying to say that the existence of god has been proven. You look equally foolish by trying to aid your claim by simply dismissing atheists and agnostics because we wouldn't understand, or any other bullshit you can throw at us.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:


It has never been proven that unicorns don't exist...are you leaving the door open on that one too?
Why not? How many species that science has claimed are extinct have been found not to be so?
Cool...we'll throw in leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, Sasquatch and the Banshee while we're at it.
Of course now you're implying that the nature of God is like the nature of earthly things such as these. God isn't some old guy who lives on top of a mountain somewhere. He is a deity. Those things you list (and unicorns, for that matter) aren't deities. You are drawing a false parallel in an attempt to prove your argument.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6591|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Of course now you're implying that the nature of God is like the nature of earthly things such as these.

FEOS wrote:

He is a deity.
And so are you
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6461|Northern California

Drakef wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Nope, wouldn't matter if I could prove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also proved it.  For that matter, it is not something that should be proven since "proving it" is contrary to the system of how faith works.  I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.
It wouldn't matter if I could disprove it, nor has it mattered in centuries and millenia past for those who also disproved it. For that matter, it is not something that should be disproven since we don't need to disprove the tooth fairy or unicorns. I wouldn't expect any of you to understand.

Also, I can say arrogant things such as this and pretend I'm right.

I can understand a theist, but you look fairly nutty trying to say that the existence of god has been proven. You look equally foolish by trying to aid your claim by simply dismissing atheists and agnostics because we wouldn't understand, or any other bullshit you can throw at us.
Ok smart guy, you win.  Me and the vast majority of the WORLD POPULATION are all sickened with frenzied minds and the vast majority of that population have not had things happen to them, even on a daily basis that more than proves an existence of a supreme being.  I alone have had more evidence of his existence and intimate interaction that far outweigh the proof required to learn things that I see, hear, touch, and smell.  The problem with arrogant people who lack the balls to even "try" to believe in something greater than themselves is that they need it to be complex, difficult for the unlearned people to understand, and it has to have high worldly acclaim because you're too cowardly to go in on something without the masses behind you.  Just as current "theories" are popular now, they'll soon give way to even more impressive and complex theories that made the older ones look foolish.  That very concept shows despicable arrogance as you quickly discard what you "thought you knew" for what is now all the rage and boast of your wisdom and learning.  This concept has spanned the millenia as has religion..which hasn't changed it's basic precepts. 

And yes, one day you will know truths and hopefully you'll have learned them willingly.

As for me, I do know clearly and without distorted judgment that there is a God who literally created our spirits, this world, and many other worlds.  He exists just as you and I do.  And yes, he actually does love us, his children, regardless of our beliefs and decisions.  Sorry you can't fathom that basic truth nor the enormity of what that means.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-08-20 09:21:39)

Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6519|UK

/flame suit on
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

IRONCHEF wrote:

Ok smart guy, you win.  Me and the vast majority of the WORLD POPULATION are all sickened with frenzied minds and the vast majority of that population have not had things happen to them, even on a daily basis that more than proves an existence of a supreme being.  I alone have had more evidence of his existence and intimate interaction that far outweigh the proof required to learn things that I see, hear, touch, and smell.  The problem with arrogant people who lack the balls to even "try" to believe in something greater than themselves is that they need it to be complex, difficult for the unlearned people to understand, and it has to have high worldly acclaim because you're too cowardly to go in on something without the masses behind you.  Just as current "theories" are popular now, they'll soon give way to even more impressive and complex theories that made the older ones look foolish.  That very concept shows despicable arrogance as you quickly discard what you "thought you knew" for what is now all the rage and boast of your wisdom and learning.  This concept has spanned the millenia as has religion..which hasn't changed it's basic precepts. 

And yes, one day you will know truths and hopefully you'll have learned them willingly.

As for me, I do know clearly and without distorted judgment that there is a God who literally created our spirits, this world, and many other worlds.  He exists just as you and I do.  And yes, he actually does love us, his children, regardless of our beliefs and decisions.  Sorry you can't fathom that basic truth nor the enormity of what that means.
All people can have their own beliefs and I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to do anything to impinge on these beliefs but, contrary to your claims, the existence of God has NOT actually been proven. People all around the world may have interpreted certain events in a way that has shaped their own views on the nature of existence but this does not constitute proof, not in a measurable or scientific sense...it's like I have said before, if it were a court of law this evidence would not stand up.

You imply that people who don't jump headlong into a religious belief system and abandon the principles of critical thinking that they apply to everything else in life somehow "lack balls"; quite an absurd argument really when it could just as easily be argued that anyone who follows a belief system and refuses to question the nature of said system lacks the balls to truly get down to the bottom of what they are actually believing in. What you are doing is advocating ignorance, I'm sure witch doctors are equally intolerant of people questioning their spells and potions.

You also seem to imply that scientific theories are nothing more than trends that come and go as and when it suits the masses whereas religion has a timeless quality to it. What you conveniently leave out is that science always leaves the door open to new evidence, hence why theories change over time...but fine, you stick with your timeless religion, just make sure you don't sail off the edge of the world next time you go abroad on holiday.

And to finish I will once again bring the argument back to the techniques of the conspiracy theorist. You claim that you know almost without any doubt that God exists as you or I do and literally created everything around us. You back this up with circumstantial evidence - in fact worse than that, circumstantial evidence that is relevant only to your own circumstances - and present not one measurable piece of evidence or proof and then proceed to claim that his existence is a "basic truth". If your argument were relating to any other subject other than religion it would be completely blown out of the water but because it is religion it gets a free pass.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"

As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

---------

That's pretty much the greatest passage about God and morality in all of literature, in my opinion. Just a shame that people such as good 'ole Adolf misinterpreted it and went on a big of a bender with the Ubermensch idea.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-20 10:34:33)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6153|Ireland
I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
Irish = Campoe and Braddock?

not really a big sample group.

I'm half Irish, include me in your next study
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6153|Ireland

S.Lythberg wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
Irish = Campoe and Braddock?

not really a big sample group.

I'm half Irish, include me in your next study
My comment wasn't about " half Irish " people.  If I wanted a sample group on people that were " half not Irish " I would have been sure to include you.

btw, I am > 90% water but I don't claim to be a lake.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
Not as good as some of your earlier comedic material Lotta_Drool. Are you a little under the weather or something?
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6417|Chicago, IL

Lotta_Drool wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
Irish = Campoe and Braddock?

not really a big sample group.

I'm half Irish, include me in your next study
My comment wasn't about " half Irish " people.  If I wanted a sample group on people that were " half not Irish " I would have been sure to include you.

btw, I am > 90% water but I don't claim to be a lake.
you may want to see a doctor about that severe water retention

my point is, Ireland has its share of both ultra-smug liberals and gun-toting rightwingers, and everything in between
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Lotta_Drool wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I found an uncanny similarity in religious people and Irish people on this forum.  Neither can back up what they say with facts but are quick to spout the same stuff over and over as if it is the truth.  The Irish seem a little less resonable about accepting facts when disproven though and allow their " reality " to be ruled by emotions and wishes.
Irish = Campoe and Braddock?

not really a big sample group.

I'm half Irish, include me in your next study
My comment wasn't about " half Irish " people.  If I wanted a sample group on people that were " half not Irish " I would have been sure to include you.

btw, I am > 90% water but I don't claim to be a lake.
I would argue that you are only 10% water and 90% bullshit.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard