You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:33:25 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Religion...and SCIENCE! (Nee - Re: Oh..those people at westboro baptist are at it again! o3o)  (Read 13312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will

Nobody is demanding they respond right away, nor all in the same post.

Offline Brandon

I don't know how fair it is to call it dogpiling, honestly.  It's an open topic, and if there are more people posting who lean towards one end of the discussion, I don't see how that's a good or bad thing.  It just is.

Does saying "no dogpiling" mean that there has to be a roughly equal number of people on both sides of a debate?

Then you do not understand the definition to dog piling. Allow me

dogpile  definition

( Usenet, probably from mainstream "puppy pile") When many people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on" the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism, he can expect to be dogpiled.
(1994-12-08)


Offline Will

If you think that disagreeing and being unfriendly are the same thing, then sure.

Offline Brandon

If you think that disagreeing and being unfriendly are the same thing, then sure.

It is unfriendly when the group doing the dog piling is unwilling or unable to consider the ideas presented. If you dont think you yourself are guilty of that at times then I can come to no conclusion except you're blind or trying to justify the unfriendly demenor of posts by calling them discussion

Offline Will

I really have a hard time finding the "unfriendly demeanor" you refer to.  This is the internet, after all, and trying to infer a tone from words on a screen is pretty much a bad idea.  You're going to find what you expect to find.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Will, you asked and were told.  Vekseid has already made steps to address the problem as he recognizes this as a problem.  Feel free to read his post as to why the issue is being addressed and he is trying to discourage the occurrence of dogpiling.  If you feel the need to argue with something that is already acknowledge and dealt with then I suggest the ranting board.  This board was begun so that people could engage in civil discourse and discussion, not for all out brawls and steam rolling.

Offline Brandon

Will, you asked and were told.  Vekseid has already made steps to address the problem as he recognizes this as a problem.  Feel free to read his post as to why the issue is being addressed and he is trying to discourage the occurrence of dogpiling.  If you feel the need to argue with something that is already acknowledge and dealt with then I suggest the ranting board.  This board was begun so that people could engage in civil discourse and discussion, not for all out brawls and steam rolling.

This. She said it much better then I could

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
... okay, what do the last several posts have to do with religion and science?

If you're done with the topic, just leave the thread. That simple. If you want to argue, start a new thread or take it to PM.

Offline Will


Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
That was before the crap started up again. *mutters and resolves never to joke again* :P

Offline Noelle

Guys. Guys. Does J.Gyll have to laugh at a bitch again?

Offline Brandon

You were arguing that religion is not a choice.  Then you made the assumption that because it is not a choice, it is similar to other things which are not a choice (sexuality for example), and therefore should not be criticized.  In bringing up free will, I was questioning if anything is a choice, and thus pointing out the absurdity of stating that because something isn't a choice it shouldn't be criticized.  Maybe my logic wasn't clear.

Its still a smoke screen Jude. You threw down a flash bomb so I wouldn't see you running out the door. You started shouting and pulling on my arm so I wouldn't see the zombie brandishing a desert fork. I hope these metaphors aren't to much

Interesting thought though, if nothing is a choice as you claim (which is bull) then nothing can be criticized because your not making a choice. 

If you want to debate free will on another thread, lets do so, yet I keep telling you that there are plenty of scientists and philosophers who doubt its existence as well, and instead of accepting that free will is not a well-established concept, you simply keep saying "it's obvious."

I don't, that's the problem. Free will being real has no basis on religion being a choice or not. See my thought experiment above

Religious information is handed down from person to person.  You claim that you choose whether or not to believe people.  Therefore you choose whether or not to believe religious information.  Your religious point of view is based on a compilation of what religious information you rejected and accepted, therefore you chose each part of your religious views.  And yet you claim you don't choose your religion?

No you've already determined your own beliefs before encountering a religion that matches or exemplifies them or as you grew into an adult. That is not choice. I don't choose to believe that the catholic church is wrong about homosexuals I just believe it (the actions I make under those beliefs are choices), I never considered any other option therefore I cant select a variety of options such as try to change things or do nothing.

Conscious selection of options. That is choice.

Human soul...  Okay are we arguing using reason at this point, emotion, or religion because I can't tell from some of your responses.

In hindsight soul was probably the wrong word to use since my definition is not well known. I think of a soul as a mish mash of aspects unique to the person. The beliefs, their personality, their thoughts, their dreams, everything like that falls within the purview of the soul by my definition.

I tend to discuss things from a mix of philosophical standpoints wrapped around reason. That hasnt changed

Emotion does stop you from considering other people's points of view fairly though.  It has no place in debate.  There's no reason why anyone should admit that they're angry during a debate; that's basically writing "hey, I'm biased" on a flag and waving it around while doing somersaults.

So you dont believe the blantant stonewalling from people is cause to form frustration in a person? I disagree. Saying Im frustrated, or Im pissed off, or something like that isnt a sign of bias. IMO its a sign that the opposition needs to tone it down so that discussion can continue without inspiring those emotions

Offline Nyarly

I'm a Creationist and simply state I agree evolutionary mechanisms are part of Natural Lawas much as gravity is. But there is one thing that science cannot explain and have a clear proof to counter Creationism that is how life began. Everytime I bring this up biogenesis is considered apart from evolution. But simple common sense to me is that without a proof of how life began at a level you call scientific certainty evolution alone is not enough for me.
Common sense? You rather seem to be hostile to actual science, although you really seem to think that you are not. What you say has nothing to do with common sense, but rather with an unwillingness or incapability to consider anything but your own purely christian viewpoint valid. Your suggestion, that it could have been aliens, seems to be nothing more but a mockery against anyone who is not religious. As an atheist I feel offended by this.

But what am I saying. Arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a little child.

Offline Caeli

But what am I saying. Arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a little child.

Please leave personal insults out of discussion and debate, please.

Offline Jude

Its still a smoke screen Jude. You threw down a flash bomb so I wouldn't see you running out the door. You started shouting and pulling on my arm so I wouldn't see the zombie brandishing a desert fork. I hope these metaphors aren't to much
You claim free will exists, refuse to provide a basis for these claims beyond the incredibly condescending thought-terminating cliche of "it's obvious," then delineate where your undefined free will does and does not extend as it suits your beliefs.  That's not logical.  If you can't even tell me what free will is, what evidence you have of its existence, and how to observe its existence, yet you can tell me where it does and doesn't extend?  That is precisely what you are doing by claiming it plays no role in religious beliefs--it seems to be done simply to prove your point without any rigor or logic.
Interesting thought though, if nothing is a choice as you claim (which is bull) then nothing can be criticized because your not making a choice.

I don't, that's the problem. Free will being real has no basis on religion being a choice or not. See my thought experiment above
Just because something isn't a choice doesn't mean it can't be criticized.  If I accidentally hit someone with my car, I still get punished for it.  Criticism is an attempt to curb dangerous behavior.  People who believe certain religious views are dangerous criticize them.
No you've already determined your own beliefs before encountering a religion that matches or exemplifies them or as you grew into an adult. That is not choice. I don't choose to believe that the catholic church is wrong about homosexuals I just believe it (the actions I make under those beliefs are choices), I never considered any other option therefore I cant select a variety of options such as try to change things or do nothing.
Lets get to the heart of the matter.  Choice is a stand in for the real word we're concerned with here:  control.  The reason why you don't criticize people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or sex is because they have no control over it (and it harms no one).  Do you believe people have no control over what religion they believe?  If that is the case, is that not the very definition of brainwashing?  I think that in and of itself would serve as a great argument on why religion is danger to begin with.
Conscious selection of options. That is choice.
And every time someone brings up a piece of information that informs your religious choices, does that not warrant another choice as to how that piece of information is going to change your pre-established beliefs?  You can learn things, such as the existence of the council of Nicea for Christians, which call your beliefs into jeopardy.  Are you not making a choice whether or not to believe these things, and then thereafter whether or not to let them influence pre-established belief?  Is this somehow different from choosing religious viewpoints?
In hindsight soul was probably the wrong word to use since my definition is not well known. I think of a soul as a mish mash of aspects unique to the person. The beliefs, their personality, their thoughts, their dreams, everything like that falls within the purview of the soul by my definition.

I tend to discuss things from a mix of philosophical standpoints wrapped around reason. That hasnt changed
It was a complete nonsequitor.
So you dont believe the blantant stonewalling from people is cause to form frustration in a person? I disagree. Saying Im frustrated, or Im pissed off, or something like that isnt a sign of bias. IMO its a sign that the opposition needs to tone it down so that discussion can continue without inspiring those emotions
The problem is, stonewalling is a relative concept.  You think I'm stonewalling you, yet in my perspective you're stonewalling me.  I don't feel like you respond to the points of mine which you wish to ignore for the sake of arguments.   I think if anyone is stonewalling anyone, it's you to me:  I can even give you examples where you've ignored my points outright and admitted you were going to do so (such as the bible quote).

Expressing your emotions is an attempt to affect the behavior of others, as you freely admitted.  Expression a potentially violently, intimidating emotion in doing so is practically coercion.  So, no, there's really no reason whatsoever why you'd ever tell someone that you're angry during a debate unless you're trying to skew things unfairly by means of force.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 10:01:16 PM by Jude »

Offline Brandon

You claim free will exists, refuse to provide a basis for these claims beyond the incredibly condescending thought-terminating cliche of "it's obvious," then delineate where your undefined free will does and does not extend as it suits your beliefs.  That's not logical.  If you can't even tell me what free will is, what evidence you have of its existence, and how to observe its existence, then you can't tell me where it does and doesn't extend.  Yet that is precisely what you are doing by claiming it plays no role in religious beliefs--except it's done simply to prove your point without any rigor or logic.

free will

–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

That is the dictionary's definition of Free will. For me, it is that and more. Free will and freedom are good aspects of chaos (dont even tell me I have to prove chaos exists next). It is the ability to be unique, the ability to be yourself, the ability to choose what you want out of life.

Now think about it. Have you made at least 1 decision in your life? Then you've excersised free will. Have you seen another person make a decision you did or didnt agree with? Then you saw them excersise free will. Anytime an individual says something, asks something, does something, thinks something that they want to do, ask, think, or say whether social/cultural groups they belong to agree or not they excersise free will

Are we happy now? Can we drop this meaningless discussion about the existance of free will and let you observe this and come to your own conclusions?

Just because something isn't a choice doesn't mean it can't be criticized.  If I accidentally hit someone with my car, I still get punished for it.  Criticism is an attempt to curb dangerous behavior.  People who believe certain religious views are dangerous criticize them.

Some people also believe that blacks and gays are dangerous. Yet somehow others think its not alright to critisize them while its alright to critisize something else to which someone doesnt have a choice

Lets get to the heart of the matter.  Choice is a stand in for the real word we're concerned with here:  control.  The reason why you don't criticize people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, or sex is because they have no control over it.  Do you believe people have no control over what religion they believe?  If that is the case, is that not the very definition of brainwashing?

First its choice, now its control. We arent going to keep changing the word till you find one that fits for your point of view. Right?

brain·wash·ing
   /ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃɪŋ, -ˌwɔʃɪŋ/ Show Spelled[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Show IPA
–noun
1.a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2.any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.
3.an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.

The definition of brainwashing implies that someone has to do it to you. Brainwashing can not be done by ones self, there has to be outside stimuli of some kind by another party. Beliefs of a person are formed throughout childhood. Sometimes influenced by outside stimuli, sometimes not (like in my case I already believed in helping others and liked the message of the catholic church).

Now heres the question or rather a few questions. Can you command or dominate your beliefs? Can you force yourself to suddenly believe or not believe in god? Can you force yourself to disregard scientific study, the scientific process, or the theories of science and call them absolute fact or lies? If you can not force yourself or command yourself to do these things then no, you do not have control over your beliefs. Therefore you do not have control over your your faith and you do not have control over the religion you belong to.

And every time someone brings up a piece of information that informs your religious choices, does that not warrant another choice as to how that piece of information is going to change your pre-established beliefs?

Im not sure I understand your question here. Can you elaborate?

The problem is, stonewalling is a relative concept.  You think I'm stonewalling you, yet in my perspective you're stonewalling me.  I don't feel like you respond to the points of mine which you wish to ignore.   I think if anyone is stonewalling anyone, it's you to me:  I can even give you examples where you've ignored my points outright and admitted you were going to do so (such as the bible quote).

I refuse to discuss the bible because as Admiral Ackbar would say "Its a trap!". To many times you and atheists or anti-theists have used the bible to trap people into a "you must follow this book and everything in it" trap which is not the case. I can still be catholic and not agree with everything the orginization says, likewise I can believe in parts of the bible and think others are bull. As I said, I will not have my beliefs, morales, principles, and faith chained to a book like Im some kind of slave. Sorry but Im not falling for that trap. Instead I told you no and you had the opportunity to rephrase your point of view without the bible quotes. Pretty sure I answered it once you did that

Expressing your emotions is an attempt to affect the behavior of others, as you freely admitted.  Expression a potentially violently, intimidating emotion in doing so is practically coercion.  So, no, there's really no reason whatsoever why you'd ever tell someone that you're angry during a debate unless you're trying to skew things unfairly by means of force.

I do think expression of emotions like frustration are grounds for the other side to look at what its saying and how its saying it. You say it unfairly skews things by means of force, I think it fairly does. If things were being fairly discussed then frustration wouldnt set in

Offline Jude

free will

–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

That is the dictionary's definition of Free will. For me, it is that and more. Free will and freedom are good aspects of chaos (dont even tell me I have to prove chaos exists next). It is the ability to be unique, the ability to be yourself, the ability to choose what you want out of life.

Now think about it. Have you made at least 1 decision in your life? Then you've excersised free will. Have you seen another person make a decision you did or didnt agree with? Then you saw them excersise free will. Anytime an individual says something, asks something, does something, thinks something that they want to do, ask, think, or say whether social/cultural groups they belong to agree or not they excersise free will

Are we happy now? Can we drop this meaningless discussion about the existance of free will and let you observe this and come to your own conclusions?
The only thing you've established is that people think that they've made a choice.  Guess what, some people are also convinced that they choose what religion they believe too... So if we're going to follow that rule, then religion is a choice (clearly what people think is not suitable evidence, which you so eloquently argue for me with your next sentence).

But you're absolutely right, the discussion of free-will isn't really getting us anywhere, so I'm perfectly fine with dropping it and focusing on the main point.  Let us assume free will exists, that is a difficult entity to define, and science hasn't discovered the exact mechanism because it's complicated.

How do you know free will doesn't affect religious choice in a subconscious way?  You are not aware of the inner workings of your subconscious by default.
Some people also believe that blacks and gays are dangerous. Yet somehow others think its not alright to critisize them while its alright to critisize something else to which someone doesnt have a choice
Except you have no control over the fact that you are gay are black, those are biological imperatives.  Religion isn't.  You can change religions, you can't change the fact that you're black or gay.  There also is no good argument on how being black is dangerous...

And I don't think that people who are against homosexuality should be treated with the same vehemence as racists although I don't think gays should be discriminated against, but that's another topic.
First its choice, now its control. We arent going to keep changing the word till you find one that fits for your point of view. Right?
That's not really what we're doing, but even if it was, does it matter?  I only need to find one instance that illustrates the difference between the two to show that having a religious belief is clearly different than being born a certain race, being homosexual, or being born a certain gender.
brain·wash·ing
   /ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃɪŋ, -ˌwɔʃɪŋ/ Show Spelled[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Show IPA
–noun
1.a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.
2.any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.
3.an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.

The definition of brainwashing implies that someone has to do it to you. Brainwashing can not be done by ones self, there has to be outside stimuli of some kind by another party. Beliefs of a person are formed throughout childhood. Sometimes influenced by outside stimuli, sometimes not (like in my case I already believed in helping others and liked the message of the catholic church).
I guess it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of believers were raised to believe the religion that they do by their caregivers...  That fits the definition of brainwashing.

You're also kind of ruining your own argument by admitting that you chose the catholic church because you liked their message of helping others.  By the way, you believe that's their message, other people took something else entirely from it.  You're really just proving my point.
Now heres the question or rather a few questions. Can you command or dominate your beliefs?
Yes.  All the time I feel an inclination to believe something which I deny, because I'm aware of the faults that inclination carries.  For example, I often see coincidences that I feel an urge to link together into something more meaningful, but I realize that it's really just an example of confirmation bias, so I reject that inclination.
Can you force yourself to suddenly believe or not believe in god?
Suddenly?  No.  But you can certainly do some soul searching and change your mind if you like.
Can you force yourself to disregard scientific study, the scientific process, or the theories of science and call them absolute fact or lies?
I could think about them, the faults I've seen, and consider them.  That might lead to me changing my opinion.  It probably won't for me, but is it possible?  Yes.  I'm choosing to think about them.
If you can not force yourself or command yourself to do these things then no, you do not have control over your beliefs. Therefore you do not have control over your your faith and you do not have control over the religion you belong to.
You have every last bit of control over whether or not you consider these things.  Are you familiar with the term delusion?  It's when you refuse to consider evidence to the contrary in order to protect a belief.  I feel this is a particularly poignant example.
Im not sure I understand your question here. Can you elaborate?
See above on the delusion thing.
I refuse to discuss the bible because as Admiral Ackbar would say "Its a trap!". To many times you and atheists or anti-theists have used the bible to trap people into a "you must follow this book and everything in it" trap which is not the case. I can still be catholic and not agree with everything the orginization says
So what you're saying is that you choose to ignore certain things in the bible and have developed your own version of the Catholic faith that doesn't believe in a literal interpretation... Are you seeing choice yet?
likewise I can believe in parts of the bible and think others are bull. As I said, I will not have my beliefs, morales, principles, and faith chained to a book like Im some kind of slave. Sorry but Im not falling for that trap. Instead I told you no and you had the opportunity to rephrase your point of view without the bible quotes. Pretty sure I answered it once you did that
All you really had to say is that you don't believe in the entire bible.
I do think expression of emotions like frustration are grounds for the other side to look at what its saying and how its saying it. You say it unfairly skews things by means of force, I think it fairly does. If things were being fairly discussed then frustration wouldnt set in
Or maybe you're frustrated because you're wrong and you don't like people pointing out errors in your logic.  I'm not saying that's the case, either of us could be wrong, but isn't that a potential explanation?

And if every time someone felt frustrated (which could be motivated by that) they did that, it would encourage lashing out emotionally when you're losing an argument (not that I'm saying you are).
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 11:20:06 PM by Jude »

Offline Brandon

How do you know free will doesn't affect religious choice in a subconscious way?  You are not aware of the inner workings of your subconscious by default.

sub·con·scious
   /sʌbˈkɒnʃəs/ Show Spelled[suhb-kon-shuhs] Show IPA
–adjective
1.existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond consciousness: the subconscious self. Compare preconscious, unconscious.
2.imperfectly or not wholly conscious: subconscious motivations.
–noun
3.the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.

Free will implies that you make a conscious choice. I said before that choice is Conscious selection of options. Therefore while the subconscious may or may not effect the religion (we have no proof of either) it does not fall within the purview of choice

Now for my counter question, how do you know the subconscious does effect it?

Except you have no control over the fact that you are gay are black, those are biological imperatives.  Religion isn't.  You can change religions, you can't change the fact that you're black or gay.  There also is no good argument on how being black is dangerous...And I don't think that people who are against homosexuality should be treated with the same vehemence as racists although I don't think gays should be discriminated against, but that's another topic.

Religion isnt a biological imperative? yes I agree. I said before that beliefs were fluid. What this means is a person can develop different conclusions to the world around us and thus beliefs can change. That doesnt change the fact that a changing conclusion and thus belief isnt a choice. Pretty sure I discussed this earlier, so take a look at my previous examples again

That's not really what we're doing, but even if it was, does it matter?  I only need to find one instance that illustrates the difference between the two to show that having a religious belief is clearly different than being born a certain race, being homosexual, or being born a certain gender.

Yes it does matter, because it falls under the goalkeeper fallacy as well as the distraction fallacy. Think about it for a moment. You say I have to prove that choice isnt involved, I did that. Then you say that I have to prove that control isnt involved. I did that. You continue to move the goal back everytime I score which puts me on a wild goose chase for an argument that will work but doesnt exist

I guess it's just a coincidence that the vast majority of believers were raised to believe the religion that they do by their caregivers...  That fits the definition of brainwashing.

Why dont you go around the world and ask every human being on the planet whether they actually believe their religion? Now Im not really going to ask you to do that as its just as impossible a task as some of the ones you've set before me.

You're also kind of ruining your own argument by admitting that you chose the catholic church because you liked their message of helping others.  By the way, you believe that's their message, other people took something else entirely from it.  You're really just proving my point.Yes.  All the time I feel an inclination to believe something which I deny, because I'm aware of the faults that inclination carries.  For example, I often see coincidences that I feel an urge to link together into something more meaningful, but I realize that it's really just an example of confirmation bias, so I reject that inclination.Suddenly?  No.  But you can certainly do some soul searching and change your mind if you like.I could think about them, the faults I've seen, and consider them.  That might lead to me changing my opinion.  It probably won't for me, but is it possible?  Yes.  I'm choosing to think about them.You have every last bit of control over whether or not you consider these things.  Are you familiar with the term delusion?  It's when you refuse to consider evidence to the contrary in order to protect a belief.  I feel this is a particularly poignant example.See above on the delusion thing.So what you're saying is that you choose to ignore certain things in the bible and have developed your own version of the Catholic faith that doesn't believe in a literal interpretation... Are you seeing choice yet?All you really had to say is that you don't believe in the entire bible.Or maybe you're frustrated because you're wrong and you don't like people pointing out errors in your logic.  I'm not saying that's the case, either of us could be wrong, but isn't that a potential explanation?

This might get easier to understand if I define control for you, so here you go

con·trol
   /kənˈtroʊl/ Show Spelled [kuhn-trohl] Show IPA verb, -trolled, -trol·ling, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
2.to hold in check; curb: to control a horse; to control one's emotions.
3.to test or verify (a scientific experiment) by a parallel experiment or other standard of comparison.
4.to eliminate or prevent the flourishing or spread of: to control a forest fire.
5.Obsolete . to check or regulate (transactions), originally by means of a duplicate register.
–noun
6.the act or power of controlling; regulation; domination or command: Who's in control here?
7.the situation of being under the regulation, domination, or command of another: The car is out of control.
8.check or restraint: Her anger is under control.
9.a legal or official means of regulation or restraint: to institute wage and price controls.
10.a standard of comparison in scientific experimentation.
11.a person who acts as a check; controller.
12.a device for regulating and guiding a machine, as a motor or airplane.
13.controls, a coordinated arrangement of such devices.
14.prevention of the flourishing or spread of something undesirable: rodent control.
15.Baseball . the ability of a pitcher to throw the ball into the strike zone consistently: The rookie pitcher has great power but no control.
16.Philately . any device printed on a postage or revenue stamp to authenticate it as a government issue or to identify it for bookkeeping purposes.
17.a spiritual agency believed to assist a medium at a séance.
18.the supervisor to whom an espionage agent reports when in the field.

Problem with your answers is, you continue to put choice in the phrase when Ive demonstrated that there is no choice in it. Which shows me that 1) you arent considering that there isnt a choice, thus not trying to see my side and 2) You really cant force yourself to accept other options thus proving my point that there is no control over a persons beliefs. Now take a look again, think about it, you dont get a choice of what you believe and now you have to force yourself to believe something else. You dont get to soul search, you dont get to consider anything else, you have to force yourself, to command yourself, to dominate yourself to change your beliefs without consideration. That is what Im asking you to do, now can you?

Or maybe you're frustrated because you're wrong and you don't like people pointing out errors in your logic.  I'm not saying that's the case, either of us could be wrong, but isn't that a potential explanation?

And if every time someone felt frustrated (which could be motivated by that) it encourages lashing out emotionally when you're losing an argument (not that I'm saying you are).

What I find frustrating is the religion bashing and theocism that goes on around here. That is born from the idea that religion is a choice when its not. The constant goalchanging and stonewalling as I try to prove how wrong that point of view is continues to frustrate me.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 11:57:46 PM by Brandon »

Online Vekseid

Erm. I made the dialogues forum just for dueling walls of text and off-topic tangents. Let's use them, please : )