MrMacSon

FFS, this guy was head of the BBC

and seems to have had issues with "truth" there, too

Letter Raises Questions About When BBC Ex-Chief Learned of [the Jimmy Saville] Abuse Cases
.

sotto voce

Savile was a Catholic. Thompson was appointed by a Catholic. Wojtyla gave Savile a papal knighthood, even as rumours were rife.

The attitude seems to have been, "We will fuck and sodomise your children, and there is nothing you can do about it. We are God, so get used to it."

TedM

You said:The clear implication is that you don't think God would create something like us stupid humans who are not anywhere close to his level, and then you give a number of reasons why you feel that way, some phrased as questions, and others as statements of opinion as fact, like "It might be fine for a few thousand years, but it's going to get awfully boring awfully quickly." It reads to me like you've already formed your conclusions, based on assumptions on your part about the nature of God, as I noted one by one. IF you can't see why your passage comes across that way, then that explains our disconnect.

Nothing sounded tentative to me. Sounds like you are backtracking now..but perhaps I've read too much into your tone. IF so, let's drop it.

TedM

I wrote nothing contradictory.

dockeen

Yep, I have worked with a few in my time.

spin

This is simply poor logic on your part. I did not state or imply that if there were a creator god he/she/it would not create humans. Please read what is said to you.

My comments were aimed at the vain anthropocentric views touted by mainstream religionists.

You need to understand the process of eisegesis, a process you've been known to use.

That's because you were not reading what I said. Speculation is about producing ideas to consider, not fixed conclusions, otherwise speculation is useless, for useful conclusions require a lot more work. Speculation produces ideas. You then have to select amongst them.

You stalwartly refused to read what I wrote, preferring to riddle it with your assumptions and wonder why you come up with such false ideas.

I don't see any evidence that there is a god, so I speculated on the god notion. An entity capable of creating a universe like ours would be capable of producing creatures that on a cosmic scale would be far more capable of making just, intelligent decisions, not just creatures whose greatest achievement seems to be dominating large sections of its own population through force in order to drain the planet of its resources.

You in your wisdom wanted to read what I said exclusively, eliminating information such that you did not reflect what I said.

:wave:

[hr=1]100[/hr]

The most impressive thing that a religion does is cover its own ass, so that a believer always has a way to continue believing. You can't question god, you puny piece of excrement. You have no way to judge god, you dung between the bullock's toes. You can't hold the creator responsible for his creation, you primeval slime. How can you expect to do and think these things when your brain is so amazingly small? (Let's not remember that god made you in his own image.)

You're either content in the straightjacket or there is something wrong with you.

However, in the real world the box is a guideline. It reduces the amount of thinking you need to do to get by. You can think outside it. This is a forum where you are encouraged to do so.

TedM

Nothing you wrote suggests otherwise. You wrote:
Your tone reflects strong doubt as to whether God would create humans. You see no reason why he should have, and you gave a number of examples. You might as well have outright said that he wouldn't have created us. It's a small step from what you said and the tone therein.

You have yet to say anything that is convincing to support the idea that you were speculating and don't really hold the views you put forth. Rather you came across as having very clear opinions on the matter. It sounds to me like you've pretty much embraced your speculations but don't want to make a final commitment to them.

There is no need to lecture me about what speculation is spin. I know what it is. I didn't see evidence of speculation in your passage. It sounds like your honest beliefs and nothing else.


I absolutely reflected what you said. Each of my points reflected exactly what you were 'speculating' with regard to God's nature, only you never indicated that you were speculating and could conceive of alternative viewpoints.



And that's ok by me. I just don't think you should take your own thoughts about the mind of God as seriously as it sounds like you do. IOW don't trust yourself on this one. You just might be very wrong.

spin

Utter rubbish. You read what you wanted to read. You seem to have been flummoxed by my irony and never consider the fact that a human wrote the comments. Your small steps are flights of religious fantasy. Instead of reshaping the world to fit your presuppositions, you'd get more by dealing with it. It might help you to deal with things in a more realistic and less manipulative way.

I'm not here to convince you about anything.

I'm working backwards through this response (literally), but it sounds to me like you're on this forum under false pretenses. You tried to tell me what I said, when you've demonstrated you didn't even read it properly, preferring the distorting glass of your own commitments. You wrongly turned my comments into perceived assumptions, which by now you should know is your error.

It sounds like I failed to lecture you successfully. But then, it's not all my fault. See below....

If you actually read what I wrote and not your eisegesis of it, you would have noted things like "wonder", "would have bothered", "if", "might be fine", "what are you going to do...?", and "would have brought". FFS TedM, you certainly failed the plain old English reading skills test.

But then you wouldn't know.

Hopefully, you've seen the film "A Beautiful Mind". The central character is a brilliant mathematician, John Nash. While he does his mathematics he is co-opted to work for the CIA to help fight Soviet spies. However, after the CIA work continues for a long time, it takes outside, objective help for him to learn that his CIA handler and the whole spy affair are a delusion of a schizophrenic mind. I don't know if god exists, but you have no way of knowing if you are like Nash before he receives help or not. Nash kept experiencing his delusions, but he learned to cope.

TedM

You just want to argue and be right. I'm tired of the garbage you are spewing to justify your position. Bottom line is that if you were speculating you sure didn't sound like it. A lot of judgement against 'god' was in your writings regardless of the degree of 'irony' you claim. Apparently, you don't want to admit the realness of your 'wonderment', and would rather accuse me of being disingenuous.


Good movie. I can only laugh at the attempt to compare me with John Nash though. I'm not the one who is deluded into thinking I know more than he does. Humility can be a good thing.

spin

Pot looking for kettle.

Zing goes the point. Obtuseness is not an effective strategy. Your job was to contemplate the analogy, not deliberately sidestep it.

No-one said you were deluded. I said that you have no way of knowing without independent confirmation of an objective nature. And that's the only way we really know anything.

So is the ability to listen and understand what people say to you.

Keep your platitudes, TedM. If you want to talk to someone, you need to show that you can listen. There is no point responding until you can.