Originally posted by SuzianneI used the word "religiosity" because that is exactly what I mean to say. Judging by many of the assertions Grampy Bobby makes, his religiosity appears to have deprived him of some understanding of the human condition and the nature of human beliefs: it is just not possible to somehow go ahead and believe something that ~ in fact ~ one simply does not believe.
Not the way you used it. You would do well to not slander someone's belief by calling it "religiosity". But this is typical, you very often substitute another word (which you clearly regard as more insulting) for a crucial word in the argument. But this doesn't actually say anything about the original crucial word in the argument, except to slander it and make it seem "bad". It's more misdirection and misrepresentation.
I attribute Grampy Bobby's blind spot here to his religiosity. Others might cite his self-righteousness or him getting his preaching-to-the-choir jollies. But I put it down to a case of sincerity-distorted religiosity. There is no "misdirection" here. I am completely on-topic and addressing exactly what he says and what his assertions are.
Originally posted by FMFYes, it is my opinion, and it is my opinion, and it is my point of view.
Not only is it just her opinion, it also a self-serving opinion because it happens to be the same as her point of view. 😀
Anything else? Any more obvious statements? You see how this is working, right? Of course you do.
Originally posted by FMFOf course it is the word you mean to say, because you wish to portray him in the worst possible light. Most people would just say "belief" instead of a loaded word that has all kinds of mostly untrue baggage associated with it, but, as you say, that's why you used it.
I used the word "religiosity" because that is exactly what I mean to say. Judging by many of the assertions Grampy Bobby makes, his religiosity appears to have deprived him of some understanding of the human condition and the nature of human beliefs: it is just not possible to somehow go ahead and believe something that ~ in fact ~ one simply does not believe. ...[text shortened]... here. I am completely on-topic and addressing exactly what he says and what his assertions are.
Originally posted by SuzianneBut I don't think that his "belief" is what has deprived Grampy Bobby of his understanding of this aspect of the human condition. I think it's his particular brand of religiosity. So it is the apt choice of word for me to use to express my view. I know plenty of Christians with firm beliefs who can, nevertheless, recognize that it is just not possible for one to somehow go ahead and believe something that ~ in fact ~ one simply does not believe. Religionist "belief" (the word you reckon I should use) does not necessarily result in a believer being stripped of the ability to understand the nature of belief and disbelief. I think the cause is "religiosity". For me to correctly state my opinion here, the word "religiosity" works and the word "belief" doesn't.
Of course it is the word you mean to say, because you wish to portray him in the worst possible light. Most people would just say "belief" instead of a loaded word that has all kinds of mostly untrue baggage associated with it, but, as you say, that's why you used it.
Originally posted by wolfgang59"It in no way describes anything approaching "truth"."
You have hopped, skipped and jumped over the word "just" in my quote.
"Just your opinion" means that's all it is. It in no way describes anything approaching "truth".
Well, then by all means please describe the "truth".
Originally posted by wolfgang59There it is again. Disingenuousness. Intellectual dishonesty. You stated that what was said "...in no way describes anything approaching "truth"", and when called on it to support that contention by describing what the truth is you run and hide behind Suzianne.
Ask Suzi.
Just be honest and say you don't know what the truth is.
Originally posted by josephwJoe, please follow along.
There it is again. Disingenuousness. Intellectual dishonesty. You stated that what was said "...in no way describes anything approaching "truth"", and when called on it to support that contention by describing what the truth is you run and hide behind Suzianne.
Just be honest and say you don't know what the truth is.
He was quoting me, without proper attribution.
I wanted to wish that this was a signal that he has learned from the lesson, but alas, I see that he only wanted to play games.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyjust not enough room for me and him so he had to go.
[b]"Why Do Men Reject God?" (By Wayne Jackson, M.A.)
"Most people in the world, throughout the ages of history, have believed in some concept of a Supreme Being. They may have had a perverted sense of Who that Being is, but they were convinced that there is a Personal Power greater than man. Given the evidence available, faith is reasonable. Tha ...[text shortened]... or's premise that "emotional motivation of some sort is a primary causative factor." of atheism?[/b]