|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2017 9:36:35 GMT
This seems an interesting follow up to the existing poll. That's not nice. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 14, 2017 9:37:41 GMT
This seems an interesting follow up to the existing poll. There was only one vote for never questioned faith on the existing poll. Are you trying to smoke out the one who did that? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 9:42:09 GMT
This seems a interesting - and necessary - follow up to the existing poll.
I seem to have duplicated one type of answer. The missing one ought to be 'Too many questions, too little time!'
@ Erjen - there is no smoke without hellfire, I believe...
*edited for clarity |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2017 9:59:19 GMT
This seems a interesting - and necessary - follow up to the existing poll.
I seem to have duplicated one type of answer. The missing one ought to be 'Too many questions, too little time!'
@ Erjen - there is no smoke without hellfire, I believe...
*edited for clarity I think it would be interesting to watch you "prove" something. Just yesterday I proved that The summation 1 to n of (.. (. x-sub-i minus x-bar .) squared ..) is the same as The summation 1 to n of (. x-sub-i squared .) minus (... (.. (. the summation 1 to n of x-bar .) squared ..) divided by n ...) I proved it many years ago too, but I had to use it again in converting programs to Python. You just can't go around accepting these things. You have to make as much certainty as possible. Often there are "proofs." I have had trouble in the past, but not much. One time I found out that the computer's "random" number generator is not a good model in some simulators. There were some embarrassing early predictions. This was no big deal since I usually avoid such models anyway. Our "faithful" here have represented themselves well regarding their scientific approach where it is possible. See the thread about flatliners. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 10:07:16 GMT
I think it would be interesting to watch you "prove" something. Perhaps unlike you Arlon, I never feel I have to much to prove. There can never be too much Monty Python, that's for sure. You'd be surprised as to how much is indeed just accepted. The First Cause of all reality wondering round a small part of the middle east two thousand years ago, taking up woodwork and being hung up to dry for doctrinal reasons, for instance. Ah, how the hours must fly by... 'The faithful' and 'scientific approach' is not something I see often in the same sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2017 10:14:15 GMT
'The faithful' and 'scientific approach' is not something I see often in the same sentence. Maybe pay more attention. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 10:17:01 GMT
'The faithful' and 'scientific approach' is not something I see often in the same sentence. Maybe pay more attention.
Thank you but that sort of correlation would really draw attention to itself very easily...
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2017 10:23:28 GMT
Maybe pay more attention.
Thank you but that sort of correlation would really draw attention to itself very easily...
At least you got the Monty Python part right. There might be hope for you yet. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 10:31:20 GMT
Thank you but that sort of correlation would really draw attention to itself very easily...
At least you got the Monty Python part right. There might be hope for you yet.
Well this is certainly the right Room for An Argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 11:45:31 GMT
If faith is assured, it has already gone through the refining process.
The time to doubt is at the belief stage.
Of course, if something is revealed that can disprove that which I put faith in, then not only would I question it, I would reject it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 14:42:43 GMT
if something is revealed that can disprove that which I put faith in, then not only would I question it, I would reject it. My congratulation on your open-mindedness. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 14, 2017 14:53:53 GMT
You left out I'm afraid to question my faith because it might jeopardize my eternal salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 15:08:10 GMT
if something is revealed that can disprove that which I put faith in, then not only would I question it, I would reject it. My congratulation on your open-mindedness. It's pretty easy. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 15:19:26 GMT
My congratulation on your open-mindedness. It's pretty easy. It always is, when things are pre-decided... |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2017 15:20:45 GMT
You left out I'm afraid to question my faith because it might jeopardize my eternal salvation.Yes, that would be another answer. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 16:00:26 GMT
It always is, when things are pre-decided... That was just a test statement to see how sarcastic you were being.
However, I was not expecting the pre-decided thing so I don't know what that means. It sounds close minded whatever it is...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 14, 2017 17:10:14 GMT
It always is, when things are pre-decided... That was just a test statement to see how sarcastic you were being.
However, I was not expecting the pre-decided thing so I don't know what that means. It sounds close minded whatever it is...
I've had a couple of the creatures tell me things like, "Well, if you're questioning your faith that's a good sign because it means you've taken the first step toward logic and critical thinking." Give me a break. God is a mystery, but I am convinced there is more to existence than materialists want people to accept as real. And the ones who did the most to convince me were........them! They pushed their narrative too long and too hard and too ardently. They pushed it in such a way that it was impossible for me to believe they had no agenda. They have an agenda to convert people into duplicates of themselves, and not one scruple about how they do it. FilmFlaneur is actually a rather bumbling and incompetent example. There are some who do it much more effectively and less obviously that he does. As he did with this thread, he often telegraphs his motives without intending to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 18:42:01 GMT
They pushed it in such a way that it was impossible for me to believe they had no agenda. They have an agenda to convert people into duplicates of themselves, and not one scruple about how they do it. FilmFlaneur is actually a rather bumbling and incompetent example. There are some who do it much more effectively and less obviously that he does. As he did with this thread, he often telegraphs his motives without intending to. The voice of paranoia. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 15, 2017 6:51:35 GMT
They pushed it in such a way that it was impossible for me to believe they had no agenda. They have an agenda to convert people into duplicates of themselves, and not one scruple about how they do it. FilmFlaneur is actually a rather bumbling and incompetent example. There are some who do it much more effectively and less obviously that he does. As he did with this thread, he often telegraphs his motives without intending to. The voice of paranoia. If you don't agree with the way I explained it, then you explain it. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 15, 2017 8:44:53 GMT
God is a mystery, but I am convinced there is more to existence than materialists want people to accept as real. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But have you never wondered what possible advantage would there be to any deliberate, supernatural First Cause not making itself clear and unambiguous to all? I have this agenda printed and laminated, copies available on request. I forgive you. The motive is curiosity, since I have long since made it a habit to question everything - while the answers so far have been interesting. But, either way, all this asking of polite questions certainly seems to have exercised you which ultimately just makes you seem defensive.. |
|
