Originally posted by sonship
I doubt it.

Is this the most poignant argument you are formulating with me today ?

So Mary has probably not appeared to anyone. So what ?

So it's something we agree on.

Originally posted by FMF
So it's something we agree on.

Do you think anyone has ever seen one of these other universes in the so-called multiverse ?

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think anyone has ever seen one of these other universes in the so-called multiverse ?

No one has ever shown me any convincing evidence that they have.

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think anyone has ever seen one of these other universes in the so-called multiverse ?

Can you respond to what I asked you about the word "poppycock"? If I have resorted to such vocabulary then I am going to apologize.

Originally posted by FMF
Can you respond to what I asked you about the word "poppycock"? If I have resorted to such vocabulary then I am going to apologize.

I did not see what you asked. But if you asked where did you use the word, you did not.

You have not disparagingly referred that diminutive term. I apologize if you took it as me literally quoting you.

You are usually not as crass as that. Your way of dismissal lately is more refined. Perhaps something more along these lines

" and your proclivity for religiosity and pouring over texts "

... a little nicer than "poppycock". LOL !!

Thanks for thinking of apologizing though.

Originally posted by sonship
I did not see what you asked. But if you asked where did you use the word, you did not.

You have not disparagingly referred that diminutive term. I apologize if you took it as me literally quoting you.

You are usually not as crass as that. Your way of dismissal lately is more refined. Perhaps something more along these lines

[quote] " and your p ...[text shortened]...

... a little nicer than "poppycock". LOL !!

Thanks for thinking of apologizing though.

I use the word "religiosity" because I think it encapsulates what I want to say. It is not a term of abuse, and I don't think it applies only to Christians.

Originally posted by FMF
Most religionists adopt and internalize the specifics of their beliefs from the human environment they are born into. I don't see how the details of your personal circumstances conflict with this.

Most religionists adopt and internalize the specifics of their beliefs from the human environment they are born into. I don't see how the details of your personal circumstances conflict with this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Religionists" is more often in the eye of the beholder.

I think physicist Lawrence Krauss is a religionist as well as biologist Richard Dawkins and some participants of this forum.

I had near of kin who lived in the same house, same family, same schools, same neighborhoods. They were thoroughly indoctrinated in the humanistic philosophies quite antagonistic to a presentation of Christ as Lord and Savior.

Same geography.
Same cultural surroundings.

So I said your method was not "sure fire".

Originally posted by FMF
I use the word "religiosity" because I think it encapsulates what I want to say. It is not a term of abuse, and I don't think it applies only to Christians.

I just read this. No comment now.

Originally posted by sonship
I just read this. No comment now.

You quoted me as using the expression "proclivity for religiosity and pouring over texts" as your reason for your characterizing me as using the word "poppycock" - which I accept was just a bit of embellishment on your part [to reflect your irritation, perhaps?], and I can only see the word "religiosity" as being one that you might feel was loaded up with 'something'. The other parts of the phrase are fairly neutral.

Originally posted by sonship
"Religionists" is more often in the eye of the beholder.

I think physicist Lawrence Krauss is a religionist as well as biologist Richard Dawkins and some participants of this forum.

No, not for me. I use the word "religionist" mostly when I am alluding to the technocratic ideology constructed around a belief that God has revealed Himself. For me "religionist" is about highly organized and documented theism. I stick pretty closely to the notion that religion is connected to a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny, and I think thought exercises that try to label people who DON'T have a belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny - labelling them as religionists? No, it doesn't work very well to my way of thinking.

Originally posted by FMF
Does it taint her purported Christian faith to your way of thinking?

How about you? Do you talk with her about her "God-figure" "superstitions"? We all see the way you talk to Christians here. Do you expect us to believe you actually respect her choice? No need to act all "high and mighty" about it.

Originally posted by FMF
technocratic

I don't think this word means what you think it does, used as you have in a "religious" context.

What exactly would "religious technology", or even "technocratic ideology", be? Can you give an example?

Or is it just some "jingoistic" catchphrase?

Originally posted by FMF
No, not for me. I use the word "religionist" mostly when I am alluding to the technocratic ideology constructed around a belief that God has revealed Himself. For me "religionist" is about highly organized and documented theism. I stick pretty closely to the notion that religion is connected to a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human ...[text shortened]... n destiny - labelling them as religionists? No, it doesn't work very well to my way of thinking.

When the natural controls human destiny, what is that? From what I understand from many atheists is that the only things that are real are material and composed of atoms. In that sense their decision to not believe in God is not really some choice made. It is the result only of the firing off of chemicals in the material neurons of the brain totally destined to provide whatever beliefs they have.

If all things real are only chemical and every action and thought of man is only the material firing of energy and matter - is that the kind of "control of human destiny" you allude to ?

What is your problem with "matter controls human destiny" verses " the supernatural God controls human destiny" ?

And if God does reveal himself to, let us say, two people, and one says "Hey, let's get together to talk about it tonight at 7:30 PM" - is that "organized religion" ?

When Jesus had the people He fed with the loaves and fishes sit in companies of 50s and 100s, was that organized in the technocratic sense ?

Are you suggesting a revelation of God could only be individualistic with absolutely NO collective or corporate aspect to it ?

Are you saying such revelation of God to more than one person should never be documented ?

Do you thing Jesus should only have had ONE disciple?
Did He having TWELVE make use of too much technocracy and organization ?

To me anyone who says Science has made God unnecessary or obsolete is a religionist. Dawkins and Krauss would fit the bill as high priests of the religion of Scientism.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How about you? Do you talk with her about her "God-figure" "superstitions"? We all see the way you talk to Christians here. Do you expect us to believe you actually respect her choice? No need to act all "high and mighty" about it.

I've known her since I was a Christian. So, yes, we have had good talks all through the period of my gradual loss of my beliefs. I'm still in touch with her now. Suzianne, I live among Christians here, and Muslims too - even a few Hindus.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]What is your problem with "matter controls human destiny" verses " the supernatural God controls human destiny" ?/b]

I don't have any "problem" with anything on this issue, sonship. Religion is, for me, about strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. If you want to use a word that expresses something some atheists and all religionists have in common, then maybe it is "ideology" and the fact that many on both sides are "ideologues" or are "zealous" about the content and/or propagation of their belief systems. There is no good reason to call atheists 'religious'.