Letter from school..

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

(1) All of the points about the US being religious in your definition is all semantics and backpedalling.

Now there's a surprise.

Neither SL or myself can even hope to know what your definition of "religion" or "religious" is...

More like, you don't want to know.

which seems to change every so slightly when convenient...

LOL!!
How would you know it changes, if you don't know what it is?

...it is clear that the majority of the US citizenry believe themselves religious. Where do you get off poo-pooing their beliefs?

Haven't poo-pooed the beliefs at all, I just do not accept any claim on the basis of he says, she says. Apparently, you do.

(2)God is described as a tripartite symbiont.

In which scripture.

To coin a phrase. Any physical incarnation will do.

How would you know that it would be God?

Including the physical Jesus incarnation.

???

Provided that this physical incarnation can accomplish the rest of the evidentiary support. (PS! Physical does not necessarily allude tangibility).

???

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Now now Jan, you're being coy! Naughty!

Enterprise-D,
Now there's a surprise.
More like, you don't want to know.

You have insisted that the US is not religious until you found yourself browbeaten into a corner. Then you allow for it with a provisio "based on the highest number of claimants". That's what I meant. BTW, I also said that Dubya, being the "elected" leader of the US can speak for the US and consistently states his country's allegiance with christianity.

LOL!!
How would you know it changes, if you don't know what it is?

The times SL humoured your definitions, you switched just enough to make it a word game.

Haven't poo-pooed the beliefs at all, I just do not accept any claim on the basis of he says, she says. Apparently, you do.

So...why do you accept anything the bible says? The bible (indeed any religious tome) is simply an extended version of "he says, she says". Despite the age of the bible, it is filled with claims and beliefs of authors with no evidentiary support. Despite the power that the Vatican wields, they operate TOTALLY on "he says, he says" (not a typo...there're no ladies over there).

In which scripture.

Any that boom "I am the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" or "To know me is to know the Father".

How would you know that it would be God?

Very true! The most I'd be able to conclude is that he's a being that exists who also has amazing abilities! And a cool spread. So how do you know any such being exists in the absense of any evidence whatsoever?



With regards to your question marks...Jesus was written as a physical incarnation...and he was also written as one of the trinity. Therefore, god appeared as a physical being.

And the second set of question marks: an incarnation doesn't even need to be tactile, a hologram for example is a physical construct that you can't hold.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

Now now Jan, you're being coy! Naughty!

LOL!!!
Why, exactly?

You have insisted that the US is not religious...

That's because it isn't actually "religious", but if the current consencus is now; religion = the amount of people claiming to be religious, then I accept it on that factor. But I've still yet to see anything which unite the USA as a highly religious country, from a scriptoral-religious perspective, the source of religion itself.

...until you found yourself browbeaten into a corner.

Browbeaten? By persons who display such a poor fund of knowledge regarding religion? LOL!!!

I also said that Dubya, being the "elected" leader of the US can speak for the US and consistently states his country's allegiance with christianity.

LOL!!!
President Bush also said the US is winning war on terror, and that Iraqi's have never had it so good.
You actually believe everything politicians tell you?

The times SL humoured your definitions, you switched just enough to make it a word game.

Either he doesn't understand my definition, or he acts as though he doesn't understand, either way his humour is only effective to similar mind-sets, like yourself.

So...why do you accept anything the bible says?

Seeing as you have ultimate faith in mankinds ability to be truthfull, why don't you accept anything the bible says?
Its not a case of "accepting" what anyone says, but of what you can understand to be real.

The bible (indeed any religious tome) is simply an extended version of "he says, she says".

Which is precisely why it not just a case of accepting what is written.

Despite the age of the bible, it is filled with claims and beliefs of authors with no evidentiary support.

That's your conclusion of it.
Do you think that is the only correct conclusion?

Despite the power that the Vatican wields, they operate TOTALLY on "he says, he says" (not a typo...there're no ladies over there).

Aren't there?

In which scripture.

Any that boom "I am the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" or "To know me is to know the Father".

Ah!! That is so cute.

Very true! The most I'd be able to conclude is that he's a being that exists who also has amazing abilities! And a cool spread. So how do you know any such being exists in the absense of any evidence whatsoever?

What you should have asked yourself before you set writing this responce was; did I ever claim to know God exists? A very important point.

With regards to your question marks...Jesus was written as a physical incarnation...and he was also written as one of the trinity. Therefore, god appeared as a physical being.

I know you don't like to talk scripture, because of your hatred for all things religious (easy....just joking), and I don't know what you're referring to, so we'll leave it there.

And the second set of question marks: an incarnation doesn't even need to be tactile, a hologram for example is a physical construct that you can't hold.

You make no sense.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

What with all his backtracking and sidestepping, I am forming the belief that Jan is one hell of a good dancer.. (I could highlight examples such as his statements written in factual manner that England has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy etc but then when I provide statistics he dismisses them on the basis that statistics are all lies).

However, I think once and for all we should settle on who is and who isn't a christian.

Jan used the definition:

'A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin and full of love, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven.'

Now, I would like to ask to what level must a christian be a follower of jesus to be considered a christian? I have seen you insult people on this forum quite a few times - which is clearly very unjesuslike behaviour. Does this mean you're no longer a christian or do you consider it ok to go against jesus teachings and still consider yourself a christian? What about someone that gets drunk? Is he no longer a christian because he got drunk? (This is what you have been implying throughout this thread).

If someone punches you Jan do you turn to them the other cheek? If not you're acting in a manner not taught by jesus and thus, by your own argument, cease being a christian.

For some reason you believe you have just cause to deny the religiosity of the US on the basis that they believe in jesus but don't follow his teachings. By that statement not only would it stand that no country is religious, (so then removing any worth in your whinging at how England is an irreligious nation), but that no person is either considering the belief that jesus is god and perfect, nobody can attain that level and thus will always fall short of his teaching. Yet you seemingly excuse yourself for falling short while affording that right to nobody else. It's pathetic if you don't mind my saying so.

- So you tell me Jan, to what level can someone do something unjesuslike/against jesus teachings and still be considered a christian?

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

What with all his backtracking and sidestepping, I am forming the belief that Jan is one hell of a good dancer..

I'm not backtracking or side-stepping at all, most of your points and questions have already been answered in this thread.

(I could highlight examples such as his statements written in factual manner that England has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy etc but then when I provide statistics he dismisses them on the basis that statistics are all lies).

To my knowledge, and I provided stats, england has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe. But if the stats are misleading, there is still a serious problem with teen pregnancies in this country, which is the point.

Jan used the definition:

'A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin and full of love, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven.'

Now, I would like to ask to what level must a christian be a follower of jesus to be considered a christian?

My answer would be,
'sincere'.

I have seen you insult people on this forum quite a few times -

And I have been insulted on this forum quite a few times,
so it is a fair exchange.

What about someone that gets drunk? Is he no longer a christian because he got drunk? (This is what you have been implying throughout this thread).

It is not drinking or lack of drinking which makes one devoted to God. If regularly drinking heavily, because you enjoy the sensation of getting pissed out of your box, to the point where it is part of your culture, then I don't see how you can believe yourself to be a follower of Jesus.

If someone punches you Jan do you turn to them the other cheek? If not you're acting in a manner not taught by jesus and thus, by your own argument, cease being a christian.

If you care to look at the the whole rather than cherry-picking section which you think aid your point, you will understand that he is instructing his diciples. There's a difference.

For some reason you believe you have just cause to deny the religiosity of the US on the basis that they believe in jesus but don't follow his teachings.

Not believing someones claim on the basis of 'they say so', does not amount to denial. You are being very dishonest.

By that statement not only would it stand that no country is religious,

The statement is incorrect.

(so then removing any worth in your whinging at how England is an irreligious nation),

Its not "whinging", it is a valid point.

... that no person is either considering the belief that jesus is god and perfect, nobody can attain that level and thus will always fall short of his teaching.

Now you're babbling.

Yet you seemingly excuse yourself for falling short while affording that right to nobody else. It's pathetic if you don't mind my saying so.

LOL!!!
Excuse myself?
What emerging as pathetic, is you desperation to win this argument by any means necessary.

u tell me Jan, to what level can someone do something unjesuslike/against jesus teachings and still be considered a christian?

Would that "unjesuslike/against jesus" thing be done with the intention of doing a "unjesuslike/against jesus", or would the person be doing the "unjesuslike/against jesus" unwittingly?

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm not backtracking or side-stepping at all

Obviously you're bound to be bias, (we are talking about you here), but the evidence is quite apparent.

To my knowledge, and I provided stats, england has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe. But if the stats are misleading, there is still a serious problem with teen pregnancies in this country, which is the point.

But.. not as bad as in the US - a nation with a higher rate of religiosity than the UK.

However, given that you do not link this high rate of pregnancy with irreligiosity, why are we even discussing it? I do not want my daughters school forcing her into god worship, little more. You seem to think that I should put up with them doing so because some teens get pregnant or pissed? Do me a lemon. But it doesn't stop there, you then go on to imply that religious people don't do such things.. which is simply unfounded.

My answer would be,
'sincere'.

So you'll have to do a survey to see how many of these 'christians' consider themselves "sincere" believers. But then who's version of sincere are we adopting? I wouldn't personally call a christian insulting others as "sincere".. It's not 'loving thy neighbour', it is very unjesuslike behaviour. In saying, you - by your own arguments - would cease being a christian.

So, kindly explain what level of "sincere" you're talking about.

And I have been insulted on this forum quite a few times,
so it is a fair exchange.

Oh right, so better to adopt a schoolboy attitude than a what would jesus do attitude?

It is not drinking or lack of drinking which makes one devoted to God.

There you go then. A christian is still a christian even if he drinks. You're arguing yourself in circles Jan.

If regularly drinking heavily, because you enjoy the sensation of getting pissed out of your box, to the point where it is part of your culture, then I don't see how you can believe yourself to be a follower of Jesus.

When frequently insulting others under the guise that "they started it" because you deem it 'fair' is a part of your life then I don't see how you can believe yourself to be a follower of jesus.

We can all do that Jan, it's coloured bubbles - nothing more. Because you don't drink in such fashion, you're instantly denying those that do their beliefs. There are some that would do the same in response to your bad attitude.

If you care to look at the the whole rather than cherry-picking section which you think aid your point, you will understand that he is instructing his diciples. There's a difference.

There's only a difference because you happily insult others but don't binge drink. The result is exactly the same. You're not being a true follower of jesus, and thus by your own arguments cannot call yourself a christian.

Not believing someones claim on the basis of 'they say so', does not amount to denial. You are being very dishonest.

No, you just seemingly missed the point, although I get the impression you do so purposely.

The statement is incorrect.

Fine, name me a religious christian country and state how you came to that conclusion.

Its not "whinging", it is a valid point.

Based upon what statistics exactly? (Perhaps the same ones I used that shows that the US has a very high rate of religiosity)?

LOL!!!
Excuse myself?

With every word. The 'lol' in capitals changes nothing Jan. Here's an example:

[pp] "It's ok if I insult others because they do the same"..

That's excusing yourself for acting in an unjesuslike manner. By insulting others you have falling short of following jesus - and yet you excuse yourself without hesitation. Others fall short of following jesus and you instantly deny themselves the right to consider themselves christian.

What emerging as pathetic, is you desperation to win this argument by any means necessary.

I "won" this argument ages ago. My daughter no longer gets forced into god worship. The rest of this discussion is purely, what was it you said? Ah yes.. interesting. If you think this is a competition though do let me know.

Would that "unjesuslike/against jesus" thing be done with the intention of doing a "unjesuslike/against jesus", or would the person be doing the "unjesuslike/against jesus" unwittingly?

Were you "uniwttingly" insulting others or did you do so intentionally?

 

[Godless]

Perhaps Jan forgot the part of "turn the other cheek"? It seems that when one verbally slaps this misfit, he slaps right back, this is what is very uncrhistian like! Where's the other cheek so we can slap it as well? LOL...

Jan is arguing in circles and like all other theists don't seem to realize they are even doing it, or completely disregards it.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,

That's because it isn't actually "religious", but if the current consencus is now; religion = the amount of people claiming to be religious, then I accept it on that factor. But I've still yet to see anything which unite the USA as a highly religious country, from a scriptoral-religious perspective, the source of religion itself.

The war on terrorism, anti-gay movements, movies as a few examples?

LOL!!!
President Bush also said the US is winning war on terror, and that Iraqi's have never had it so good.
You actually believe everything politicians tell you?

Ah...but Jan, no one is refuting Bush's statements with regards to the USA being christian. Added to that, Dubya is empowered to speak on behalf of his nation. He can state that the United States is a christian country, and while this may or may not be true (and we know it is not 100% a christian country...ignoring of your magical definitions for now), we on the outside must accept his official word as the elected leader of the country that the US is indeed a christian nation, until such time as other US political powers or a majority of the population demand that he retract such claims. With regards to "winning the war on terrorism", there are other countries involved in said altercation that he cannot speak for, and thus this statement must be investigated further to verify its truth.

Seeing as you have ultimate faith in mankinds ability to be truthfull, why don't you accept anything the bible says?
Its not a case of "accepting" what anyone says, but of what you can understand to be real.

So, you're telling me that you believe nothing that anonymous individuals have written, yet still accept claims written by anonymous individuals as what you understand as reality?

Jan, there is no way you can inherit theism other than through already established texts - catholicism, hinduism, islam etc are not DNA encoded - therefore your understanding of reality is a theist consensus, not your own individual discovery. I can easily accept that you believe your reality wholeheartedly and have unshakeable faith in your god, but don't feed us bunk about "understand to be real" in juxtaposition to "accepting what anyone says".

Which is precisely why it not just a case of accepting what is written.
That's your conclusion of it.
Do you think that is the only correct conclusion?

It is the only correct conclusion (that the bible is a compendium of claims with no evidence). It is not however the only existent conclusion.

Ah!! That is so cute.

Why is this so cute?

What you should have asked yourself before you set writing this responce was; did I ever claim to know God exists? A very important point.

1a. You consider yourself a "true" christian. This by definition (by all definitions) includes a belief in a god. Your own definition of a true christian which is a characteristic you ascribed to yourself is a follower of the footsteps of jesus. Did he not also believe in his daddy?
1b. You have (at least) alluded that a "true" christian worships jesus as a saviour. Since you by your own claim have said you are a true christian, you have at least jesus as a god.
2. You capitalize the word god.
3. You stated that a child can develop a god consciousness (out of thin air).
4a. You have stated your support for ID even so far as to state that evolution supports the idea of an intelligent designer. In fact your statement was: "The fact of evolution has always been known and observed, and is a great reason to believe in an intelligent god." - here
4b. Indeed this support is carried further when you tell KennyJC "He's not only my God, He is yours also, even though you deny Him" - here
5. You consistently quote the bible and to a lesser extent hindu text as your arguments.
6. You defended the obvious questionable indoctrination tactic of the school in this thread.

I've however looked thru your posts, and you were very careful to not state "i know god exists" - point 4b being the closest you've come in my cursory trip down memory lane. You may not have actually typewritten those four words Jan, but we know where you're coming from.

I know you don't like to talk scripture, because of your hatred for all things religious (easy....just joking), and I don't know what you're referring to, so we'll leave it there.

This is not far from the truth; I have barely any tolerance for religious endeavours, 'qualifications', organizations, events etc. As a matter of fact, I was outraged that our own government invited that sanctimonious, sensationalist, con artist Benny Hinn twice.

I can respect and even admire a religious group who benefits society as a whole (eg efforts to assist poverty stricken folk etc), and I can judge an individual separate from his theist beliefs if any. However that is the extent of my patience with religion.

With regards to this response in particular. Your scripture which you hold as true has stated christ to be the physical incarnation of god. You know it, stop being coy.


---

With regards to the topic of this thread Jan...if I may ask (or even if I may not). Is it christian-like to force, trick, hypnotize or otherwise wittingly impose your beliefs on a being who does not know better or who clearly does not want to be party to your theisms?

 

[Jan Ardena]

The war on terrorism, anti-gay movements, movies as a few examples?

That's not religion.

Ah...but Jan, no one is refuting Bush's statements with regards to the USA being christian.

Even if that were true it wouldn't matter, it is not a highly religious country because there is nothing religious about it, unless you thing religion=the amount of religious people, which anyone who understands religion, doesn't.

Added to that, Dubya is empowered to speak on behalf of his nation. He can state that the United States is a christian country, and while this may or may not be true (and we know it is not 100% a christian country...ignoring of your magical definitions for now), we on the outside must accept his official word as the elected leader of the country that the US is indeed a christian nation, until such time as other US political powers or a majority of the population demand that he retract such claims.

But it doesn't make it true, or even plausible.

With regards to "winning the war on terrorism", there are other countries involved in said altercation that he cannot speak for, and thus this statement must be investigated further to verify its truth.

Never the less, he still said it, so according to your logic, it must be true.

So, you're telling me that you believe nothing that anonymous individuals have written.....

No I'm not telling you that.

...yet still accept claims written by anonymous individuals as what you understand as reality?

I accept what I can understand, and that understanding is based on different things.

Jan, there is no way you can inherit theism other than through already established texts -

That is a nonsensical statement, in real terms.

...catholicism, hinduism, islam etc are not DNA encoded - therefore your understanding of reality is a theist consensus, not your own individual discovery.

As above... but I will add that my understanding of reality is based primarily on my lifes experience, no different to anyone else.
To say I have come to that understanding not of my own discovery, can only be regarded as an attack on my character, as you have no idea of who I am.

I can easily accept that you believe your reality wholeheartedly and have unshakeable faith in your god, but don't feed us bunk about "understand to be real" in juxtaposition to "accepting what anyone says".

Why is it bunk?

It is the only correct conclusion (that the bible is a compendium of claims with no evidence). It is not however the only existent conclusion.

I cannot see GOD with my own eyes, therefore God does not exist.
Right on cue again.

Why is this so cute?

Your pretending you don't really give a shit.

Did he not also believe in his daddy?

Another cutie-pie statement. What you really mean is did he not believe in his father, God.

2. You capitalize the word god.

And this means I know GOD exists... how exactly?

3. You stated that a child can develop a god consciousness (out of thin air).

I've stated no such thing.

4a. You have stated your support for ID even so far as to state that evolution supports the idea of an intelligent designer. In fact your statement was: "The fact of evolution has always been known and observed, and is a great reason to believe in an intelligent god." - here

I don't get it.
How does this mean "I know God exists"?

4b. Indeed this support is carried further when you tell KennyJC "He's not only my God, He is yours also, even though you deny Him" - here

You must try and understand it in its context, Kenny said;
"You appear to be able to use common sense when talking about this God of yours..." Meaning, if God does exist, then ultimately everybody is part and parcel of him, even those that deny
him.

6. You defended the obvious questionable indoctrination tactic of the school in this thread.

And how do you glean from this, the idea that I know God exists?

I've however looked thru your posts, and you were very careful to not state "i know god exists" -

LOL!!! What do you mean I "was very careful"?

.... we know where you're coming from.

I honestly don't you even know what relgion is, never mind where I'm coming from. You called the Bhagavad Gita, "Vita", or something similar, for crying out loud.

This is not far from the truth;

I did have a sneaky feeling.

I can respect and even admire a religious group who benefits society as a whole (eg efforts to assist poverty stricken folk etc),

That's mighty big of you.

... I can judge an individual separate from his theist beliefs if any. However that is the extent of my patience with religion.

...

...therefore your understanding of reality is a theist consensus, not your own individual discovery.

Sounds like it.

With regards to the topic of this thread Jan...if I may ask (or even if I may not). Is it christian-like to force, trick, hypnotize or otherwise wittingly impose your beliefs on a being who does not know better or who clearly does not want to be party to your theisms?

As far as I am concerned, Enterprise-D, our discussion is an extention of the topic of this thread.
As for you question, I don't think it is christ-like, therefore i do not think it is christian.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

With regards to the topic of this thread Jan...if I may ask (or even if I may not). Is it christian-like to force, trick, hypnotize or otherwise wittingly impose your beliefs on a being who does not know better or who clearly does not want to be party to your theisms?

As far as I am concerned, Enterprise-D, our discussion is an extention of the topic of this thread.
As for you question, I don't think it is christ-like, therefore i do not think it is christian.

Jan.

Given this statement, why have we arrived at page 12? Why are you in support of the school's attempts at formatting other people's children? You have stated here that you do not think it is christian that indoctrination occur. So either you think somehow this school is attempting something other than indoctrination, or you do have various levels of acceptable christianity, which the school is acting in accordance with.

I'll address the rest later...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Given this statement, why have we arrived at page 12? Why are you in support of the school's attempts at formatting other people's children? You have stated here that you do not think it is christian that indoctrination occur. So either you think somehow this school is attempting something other than indoctrination, or you do have various levels of acceptable christianity, which the school is acting in accordance with.

I'll address the rest later...

Well ask yourself this. If, as you and hopefully agree, this kind of behaviour is not christ-like, or christian, then what is it?

There is no "forced" worship, or "religious indoctrination" at english schools, because if there was, we would here about it in the media.
If you don't like what you class as "forced worship", then leave the establishment. It's a matter of choice.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Jan...you're back to square one. You have not gotten the entire point. Even though the school did!

Not to mention your non sequitur "we would hear it in the media". So unless it's in the media it's not true Jan?

Bollox and balderdash I say.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan...you're back to square one. You have not gotten the entire point. Even though the school did!

Not to mention your non sequitur "we would hear it in the media". So unless it's in the media it's not true Jan?

Bollox and balderdash I say.

Then I am not sure exactly what you're asking of me.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Well ask yourself this. If, as you and hopefully agree, this kind of behaviour is not christ-like, or christian, then what is it?

Indoctrination is exactly what I expect from christians. However, coming down to the pure and utopic morals of it all, christianity is not supposed to support indoctrination of any kind. Religious apologists would say that christianity is all about exposure and acceptance via free will.

There is no "forced" worship, or "religious indoctrination" at english schools, because if there was, we would here about it in the media.

You seem to have cornered the definition of 'force' with 'show of power'. Force can simply be misuse of a trusted position...like teacher. And your 'media' assertion is false. There are many things that can go unnoticed by the media.

If you don't like what you class as "forced worship", then leave the establishment. It's a matter of choice.
Jan.

Or you could demand that the school uphold the law. As written. And not challenge SL. Althought the point is kinda moot since they have indeed respected SLs wishes in the end...after what I consider to be much beaurocratic resistance.


Basically Jan...you are in support of a school employing a form of indoctrination, yet call yourself a true christian. Thoughts and comments?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

Indoctrination is exactly what I expect from christians. However, coming down to the pure and utopic morals of it all, christianity is not supposed to support indoctrination of any kind.

Then we agree, there are christians who fall short of "christianity.

Force can simply be misuse of a trusted position...like teacher.

Where's the "force" in that?

And your 'media' assertion is false. There are many things that can go unnoticed by the media.

That's possible, but unlikely given the current mood on religion.

As written. And not challenge SL. Althought the point is kinda moot since they have indeed respected SLs wishes in the end...

Good for you SL.

Basically Jan...you are in support of a school employing a form of indoctrination, yet call yourself a true christian. Thoughts and comments?

----

indoctrination
- cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions

I don't think so.
As I stated earlier, i believe the words "force" and "indoctrination" were intentionally used to discredit religion. Create a strawman, then set him alight.

You didn't answer a question I posed, a few posts back. I would be interested in your response.

you stated;

Because they said so in the survey. I cannot imagine that any percentage of 159 million, 30 thousand adult people would lie about their religion to satisfy Jan's arguments. Or even lie to appear "socially correct" on an identity-confidential survey.

Seeing as you have faith in mankinds ability to be truthful, why don't you accept anything the bible says?

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

With respect to the statistic question...my statement was a probability clause not a blind faith claim. It is MORE likely that YOU Jan, a single person, are incorrect, as opposed to close to one hundred and sixty million. These people are alive, and signed a legal consensus to the fact that they are religious.

The bible however is a compendium of unbelievable tales written by long dead authors, held up as eternal truth of an omnipotent imaginary friend. Whereas a survey can be proven (and I admit it would be difficult! but not impossible), the claims of christianity of godly acts can not.

How is this in any way similar?

 

[Enterprise-D]

Just as I suspected as well Jan you see "force" as a brutish physical show of overwhelming power or violence. I also suspect that you are pretending at being focussed on one definition to avoid conceding this point.

Force can also be defined as "a capacity for affecting the mind or behavior" or "efficacy" such as used in the example the force of emotive argumentation or the force of wielding fear as an incentive. Therefore, a teacher, in a position of high trust, especially by the student has the power to FORCE a student to become religious.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,.

With respect to the statistic question...my statement was a probability clause not a blind faith claim.

Come on Enterprise, you are backpedaling, you
said "I cannot imagine that any percentage of 159 million... What is that if not "a blind faith claim"?

It is MORE likely that YOU Jan, a single person, are incorrect, as opposed to close to one hundred and sixty million.

It depends on the detail, something you're not bothered about.
Some people think they are religious because they go to church on sunday, or because their parents were. Some may in hindsight, upon a more in-depth discussion realise that they are not actually religious, by the course of their actions. It would take a long time to discuss this with 159 million poeple.

These people are alive, and signed a legal consensus to the fact that they are religious.

That doesn't make them religious, does it?

The bible however is a compendium of unbelievable tales written by long dead authors, held up as eternal truth of an omnipotent imaginary friend.

(f I cannot see God with my own eyes, he does not exist)
So if any of the 159 million died during this discussion, would that mean their statement is null and void?

Whereas a survey can be proven (and I admit it would be difficult! but not impossible), the claims of christianity of godly acts can not.

A survey of this magnitude cannot be conclusively proven,
by the very nature of the subject.
To you a person is religious because they so, in reality a person is only religious if they are actually religious.

How's
this in any way similar?

Face it Enterprise, your word-juggelry cannot aid you. You believe what you want, and discard the rest, because it doesn't suit your argument, or position.

Jan.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D,.

Come on Enterprise, you are backpedaling, you
said "I cannot imagine that any percentage of 159 million... What is that if not "a blind faith claim"?

It's good that you allude that blind faith is always linked to imagination. Good learning on debating tactics too using my own word

However my statement was that i couldn't imagine that 159M adults would lie to satisfy your outlook on life or to appear socially correct. I did not state that it was what I believed to be absolute reality. That statement leaves room for me to be wrong. That is the difference right there.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'any'. It left you a straw to grasp at.

It depends on the detail, something you're not bothered about.
Some people think they are religious because they go to church on sunday, or because their parents were. Some may in hindsight, upon a more in-depth discussion realise that they are not actually religious, by the course of their actions. It would take a long time to discuss this with 159 million poeple.

No it would not. They are all religious. You are the one with an ever tweaked definition of what religious should be.

That doesn't make them religious, does it?

(Quasi)Legally speaking those 159M people have allied themselves with christianity. I say quasi because christianity isn't really a legal entity, the survey is. Bible wise not necessarily. But who are you to tell them they're not religious? Do you have a pointy pope hat with a cross on it? I have no reason to take your word over theirs.

(f I cannot see God with my own eyes, he does not exist)
So if any of the 159 million died during this discussion, would that mean their statement is null and void?

That would mean their statement is unverifiable for those 159M people in that time slice and statistical selection. This is a highly unlikely scenario however.

Now keep in mind what they believe in is completely without evidentiary merit. While it is verifiable that these people say they believe in god, has no bearing on the actual existence of god.

A survey of this magnitude cannot be conclusively proven,
by the very nature of the subject.

Yes it can. Go repeat the survey yourself (never said it would be easy). Or better yet in the world of the WWW, just build a website and let them come vote.

To you a person is religious because they so, in reality a person is only religious if they are actually religious.

I'll allow for this statement a little, however I put it to you that I have less reason to doubt 159M live people as opposed to one single live Jan. I also put it to you that your definition of religious disincludes many people on mere technicalities and inane detail (like drinking, attending a party, or screwing).

Face it Enterprise, your word-juggelry cannot aid you. You believe what you want, and discard the rest, because it doesn't suit your argument, or position.
Jan.

LOL I am amused. "Juggelry" Talk about the proverbial Pot and Kettle scenario.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

It's good that you allude that blind faith is always linked to imagination.

What a desperate statement.
It's good also, that you allude that faith isn't always linked to imagination.

However my statement was that i couldn't imagine that 159M adults would lie to satisfy your outlook on life or to appear socially correct.

Your first reason is understandable, as they don't know who I am, but your second reason is a shot in dark.

I did not state that it was what I believed to be absolute reality. That statement leaves room for me to be wrong. That is the difference right there.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'any'. It left you a straw to grasp at.

I didn't suggest you believed it be absolute reality. You have a habit of shooting way over the mark. But the reality is (imo), there can be no right or wrong, only belief, and the only way you will accept that you're wrong is if it suits you.
Maybe you shouldn't have used the word 'any', but you did, and it shows your intention, and that's what matters.
As for it being a "straw", it's more like a giant haystack.

No it would not. They are all religious. You are the one with an ever tweaked definition of what religious should be.

religious (adj)
spiritual, sacred, devout, pious, holy, thorough, conscientious, dutiful, faithful, reliable, loyal

Do you really think it is that easy?

(Quasi)Legally speaking those 159M people have allied themselves with christianity.

That still doesn't make them religious. To be religous means you have to acutally be religous, not just be aligned to a group.

I say quasi because christianity isn't really a legal entity, the survey is.

What does the law have to do actual religion, and being actually religious?

Bible wise not necessarily. But who are you to tell them they're not religious? Do you have a pointy pope hat with a cross on it?

I haven't said their not religious, I just don't accept their claim on the strength of 'i am religious because i say i am'.

I have no reason to take your word over theirs.

That is a strawman. I have said I don't accept such claims lightely, not that they are NOT religious. But it wouldn't surprise me if some weren't actually religious, and I don't think it would surprise you either.

Now keep in mind what they believe in is completely without evidentiary merit.

That depends on your perspective. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, and there is no reason to doubt (unless of course your desperate) to doubt his existence.

While it is verifiable that these people say they believe in god, has no bearing on the actual existence of god.

That may be so for some people (alot even), but there is no way to verify whether belief does or does not have bearing on God's existence, especially for one who is a self-confessed explictly strong atheist.
Unless of course you can verify it?

Yes it can. Go repeat the survey yourself (never said it would be easy). Or better yet in the world of the WWW, just build a website and let them come vote.

A survey can only be effective if you ask every single one of the 159M people individually, in a serious discussion. I just don't have the time, and neither do you i suspect.
Doing it via a website, through voting, is just as, if not more, ineffective.

I'll allow for this statement a little, however I put it to you that I have less reason to doubt 159M live people as opposed to one single live Jan.

You mean the strawman you erected.

I also put it to you that your definition of religious disincludes many people on mere technicalities and inane detail (like drinking, attending a party, or screwing).

This is a blatent lack of understanding of what I said, either that, or you are blatently dis-honest. Your atheism is noted, as is your dislike of religion, but to belittle relgion in such a way as to reduce it to such a simple matter of 'one is religious because they say they are', shows a certain lack of intelligence, from a otherwise smart person.

Jan.