|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 4, 2012 8:31:11 GMT 10
since faith is belief without evidence, an increase in faith would mean the reader was left with less evidence. Only atheists define faith that way. P.S. "Losing my Religion" is a euphemism for cursing, Buzz.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Nov 4, 2012 8:40:27 GMT 10
Life is bigger It's bigger than you And you are not me The lengths that I will go to The distance in your eyes Oh no, I've said too much I set it up That's me in the corner That's me in the spotlight Losing my religion Trying to keep up with you And I don't know if I can do it Oh no I've said too much I haven't said enough I thought that I heard you laughing I thought that I heard you sing I think I thought I saw you try Every whisper Of every waking hour I'm choosing my confessions Trying to keep an eye on you Like a hurt lost and blinded fool Oh no, I've said too much I set it up Consider this The hint of the century Consider this The slip that brought me To my knees failed What if all these fantasies Come flailing around Now I've said too much I thought that I heard you laughing I thought that I heard you sing I think I thought I saw you try But that was just a dream That was just a dream That's me in the corner That's me in the spotlight Losing my religion Trying to keep up with you And I don't know if I can do it Oh no I've said too much I haven't said enough I thought that I heard you laughing I thought that I heard you sing I think I thought I saw you try But that was just a dream, try, cry, why, try That was just a dream, just a dream, just a dream Dream Yup, I see all the references to cursing. Somewhere. Anywhere. Where?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 4, 2012 9:15:19 GMT 10
Doesn't seem to make any reference to organized religion either.. But lets explore this: " Losing religion is a metaphor or euphemism for cursing used in some rural areas of America. The phrase is based on the scriptural proscription of curses, that is, calling upon the Almighty to visit eternal damnation upon something. A related phrase "we lost of a lot of religion" used to describe an activity that went poorly and resulted in a loss of temper and cursing; often said of performing repairs on equipment. The rock band R.E.M.'s song "Losing My Religion" is loosely based on this phrase. In an interview with Michael Stipe, he states that: "... In the South, in Georgia, where we live, if you say that you're 'Losing your religion' basically means that you're at the end of your rope, or that you've had it, you're fed up" [1].
" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Losing_religionThere. You have a direct quote from the lyricist and lead vocalist of REM, himself. But you go ahead as usual and believe YOUR interpretation, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ...Has it occurred to you that you might still actually learn something, Slarti-pants?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Nov 4, 2012 10:30:50 GMT 10
Where does Michael Stipe say it means "cursing"?
I am very unlikely to learn anything from you, am I?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 21:52:07 GMT 10
Only atheists define faith that way. P.S. "Losing my Religion" is a euphemism for cursing, Buzz. Everyone defines faith as belief without evidence, because all the evidence is against religious beliefs but people like you - delusionaries - continue to believe this total rubbish. So you speak for 'everyone' now, Buzz? Who gave you that authority? Last I heard, you could only speak for yourself. And just because you judge the 'supposed' evidence unethically and unfairly, doesn't mean the evidence is against religion.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:04:52 GMT 10
Where does Michael Stipe say it means "cursing Do you have Asperger's syndrome, slarti? Most people wouldn't need everything spelled out for them, like that. What do you think often happens when you are fed up, or at the end of your rope? In the southern states, where religion is likely the last thing you'd want to lose; losing your religion likely means you couldn't be more frustrated. Southerners associate it with the words that come from those feelings. You're half right, there.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:16:11 GMT 10
So you speak for 'everyone' now, Buzz? Who gave you that authority? Last I heard, you could only speak for yourself. And just because you judge the 'supposed' evidence unethically and unfairly, doesn't mean the evidence is against religion. I dont have faith in Pythagorus Theorem - I know it always works. Faith is belief with out evidence - and I dont have that and if you have evidence you dont need faith. So do you have faith the Pythagorus theorem will always work? Do you assume it will on faith, because it has in the past?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:22:54 GMT 10
It always works and always will work - it requires no faith. FaITH IS BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Are you certain of that? Do you have the required evidence to support that notion? (For it to be excluded as a supposed 'faith' statement)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:29:34 GMT 10
belief (n.) late 12c., bileave, replacing O.E. geleafa "belief, faith," from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon "to hold dear, esteem, trust" (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. Glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed," from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- "to care, desire, like, love" (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. "The be-, which is not a natural prefix of nouns, was prefixed on the analogy of the vb. (where it is naturally an intensive) .... [OED] Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (a sense attested from early 13c.).
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:32:57 GMT 10
Do you believe that? Where's your proof?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 22:49:53 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 9, 2012 23:08:46 GMT 10
If God doesn't exist, theists are delusional. If God does exist atheists are in denial.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 10, 2012 2:01:27 GMT 10
Thomas (doubting Thomas) said "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." When he saw the evidence he needed he believed - according to your definition Buzz he now does not have faith?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 10, 2012 5:28:58 GMT 10
Good point, fat.
Might I also add the atheists claim "God doesn't exist" continues to be an unproven statement. Should that mean that Atheism is a faith?
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 10, 2012 12:23:53 GMT 10
You keep on about 'married to Asherah with 70 children" on the flimsiest stretch of wild interpretation.
The fact is that the Jews did flirt with other gods often but the prophets kept bringing them back to the worship of the one God. The events at Mt Carmel plainly explain this Buzz.
950 prophets of Baal and Ashterah vs one prophet of the God of Israel.
One thing I do know; your propensity to tell me what I believe is based on false presumptions.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 10, 2012 17:55:13 GMT 10
I used the term Jews because I thought it would be easier to understand.
Archaeology has not proven your point/s mate.
Your hero Doctor M.D. (was it Magee? - not trying to insult - I have just forgotten) has written a whole history based originally by taking the commandment that "you shall have no other gods but me" to mean that originally there were other gods they worshipped and then he has adapted all kinds of 'evidence' to fit this mindset.
Yes the Israelites did go whoring after other gods but they (even in the worst case) would never tamper with scripture. It was not their original practice and the prophets brought them back to the straight and narrow.
Everytime there is an argument you poohpooh all evidence which does not agree with you as lies, rubbish and/or tampered with (or to use your fancy word - redacted). It doesn't wash.
I am open to truth but not to being bombarded with the same constant repetition of concocted half truths and flights of imagination dressed up as some sort of scientific study.
Buzz - you need to see you needle is stuck.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 10, 2012 19:40:08 GMT 10
<Sigh>
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 10, 2012 22:27:35 GMT 10
Neither do overclocked ape-men.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 10, 2012 22:51:45 GMT 10
Neitzche said the same thing... 200 years ago.
We'll see you in another "hunfred" years, then. (As you said before your edit)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 10, 2012 23:01:18 GMT 10
He said religion would be gone in 100 years. He said that 200 years ago. Do the math.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Nov 10, 2012 23:45:00 GMT 10
200 years ago they did have Darwin...... but he was only three.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 11, 2012 0:11:37 GMT 10
Not quite, Stud. It was probably a little under 150 years ago. His statement "God is dead" wasn't in a spirit of self-satisfied atheist arrogance either. In fact it was a warning. Have you ever seen the full quote?
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
What Nietzsche was saying was that the secularisation of the West was not going to be without consequences. It wasn't an atheist statement, more a dire prediction by Nietzsche of the consequences of atheism. He lived at a time when the secular state was gaining ground all throughout Europe in the late 1800s, and nothing was more emblematic of the growing triumph of the secular state than the Rissorgimento in Italy and the abolition of the Papal States. Ever been to Paris? Have you visited and inspected the Sacré-Coeur in Montmartre? It was built by conservative Catholics as an act of atonement for what was going on in Italy at the time with the unification of Italy and the consequential reduction of Papal holdings in Italy from the vast Papal States to that tiny block of land in Rome. That had a tremendous effect right throughout Europe. Let me tell you it was a lot bigger than Obama getting re-elected, good as that was! Gotta go!
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 11, 2012 1:33:40 GMT 10
Buzz, your proposition has been considered and duly rejected.
God exists, the evidence is as clear as day.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 11, 2012 9:46:00 GMT 10
There's the fallacy: Atheism is no "off" button. Atheism is not a suspension of judgement (That would be agnosticism). Atheism is a conscious, (and in your case, 'belligerent') decision to reject belief in God and the supernatural. No you didn't switch off the TV, you changed channels and turned the volume to 20. It was a judgement YOU made, not by weighing the available evidence, but based exclusively on speculation and conjecture. I will even go so far as to say that atheism is *gasp* DERIVATIVE of religion. If you knew your history, then you'd know that atheism was at it's height of popularity in Bastille, France, 1789. "Culte de la Raison," they called it. (That was back when atheists were smart. They could recognize it for what it was.) Incidentally: Intelligent atheism has been waning since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Now, you are just 'loud.' So no, Atheism is no 'off' button. (And obviously it's not a 'mute' button, either.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Nov 11, 2012 10:10:25 GMT 10
...And yet you believe all of that without an ounce of evidence.
|
|