Creating a Religion

[GAHD]

I think you mean trifurcating, Irish.

[Uncle Martin]

Irish,

This is complete foolishness,...that must be intended to increase your post count,...as it has no other value. What part of "basically two common views" is difficult for you to understand? The two are natural abiogenesis and biblical creation. The "third" that you reference has several question marks following it,.... so now it is you quoting out of context. The many, many others are just that, some non christian creation theories, (you don't have a monopoly on that), and some other science based theories. I won't assume to know all of the many, many,... but we all know there are more than the two prevalent ones. C'mon, do you really like to argue that much?

[IrishEyes]

08/20/2004 09:06 PM - Unc

C'mon, do you really like to argue that much?

 

Oh my... wait just a sec... How did nemo put it? which one are you again, the pot or the kettle?

 

Did I just imagine at least a month's worth of "Irish, correct terminology is a MUST!" "Irish, why can't you understand how important using the correct scientific terms are?" "Irish, what's wrong with you that you defend these people that don't know how to say what they mean?"

 

"Complete foolishness", my ***! The only thing completely foolish about this is that you are now trying to imply that FreeT didn't contradict himself by first stating there were "many, many" more than the two nemo said, then changing it to three (abiogenesis, creation, life has always existed). Now we're going to take a ride down Semantics Road, and you're going to explain why it's perfectly fine for you to insist upon correct usage, definitions, and terminology at all times, but it's also perfectly fine for you to disregard those same standards if YOU feel it's ok, RIGHT? Come on, Unc...I haven't "gone away with" you in a few weeks. But please use small words, so everybody can understand, ok?

[Uncle Martin]

I must assume that the term "third option" somehow means third and final option to you. There is no logic that I can see in your argument. I see no third of three, not even third out of 200. Just third option. I do appreciate linguistic precision, and correct terminology as you've indicated. I don't disregard the standards we have recently argued,.... I just happen to understand what was written. I'm sorry,...you wanted small words, lets try an analogy that the verbally challenged may understand.

 

Is it behind door No. 1? Door No. 2? But wait, the old TV show had 3 doors to choose from?..... What happened to door no. 3? Nowhere does this disallow the existence of door no. 3,.... or 4,5,6, etc.............

 

I know you just love to get us mean old scientific types backed into a corner and watch us squirm our way out as you torment us, and I realize that I have just dashed your hopes of doing that to FT with this misunderstanding. Please try to keep in mind that YOU not understanding something is not the same as someone mistating something.

 

You seem to be on a fishing expedition here. Keep trying, you're bound to catch something sooner or later.

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 02:05 AM - Unc

I must assume that the term "third option" somehow means third and final option to you. There is no logic that I can see in your argument. I see no third of three, not even third out of 200. Just third option. I do appreciate linguistic precision, and correct terminology as you've indicated. I don't disregard the standards we have recently argued,.... I just happen to understand what was written.

 

OK, try it again, but I still am not seeing how FreeT's "many many more" and "signifigantly more" turned into "three" and you are saying that it's that *I* am not understanding it, not that he mis-stated it.

 

And while you're at it, explain how me asking FreeT to stick to his own standards of correct terminology, as he so often insits others do, is now me "lov(ing) to get (you) mean old scientific types backed into a corner and watch(ing) (you) squirm (y)our way out as (I) torment (you)"?? Also, let me know how you jumped in and saved the day with your post and dashed my hopes of doing 'that' to FreeT???

 

Your post explained nothing more than that you were making a very concerted effort to explain away FreeT's confusing and contradictory statements. I was not asking YOU to clarify what FreeT said or meant. I was asking FreeT if he is claiming that there are two explanations for the origin of life (as nemo orignially stated), more than two - specifically three - (as FreeT later asserted), or MANY MANY more than two, as he said at least twice.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I was not asking YOU to clarify what FreeT said or meant. I was asking FreeT if he is claiming that there are two explanations for the origin of life (as nemo orignially stated), more than two - specifically three - (as FreeT later asserted), or MANY MANY more than two, as he said at least twice.

Well then, eventually you will have the opportunity to do just that. Should be good for four or five pages of what will be VERY redundant arguing.

 

I hope you enjoy yourself!!

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 02:05 AM - Unc

I must assume that the term "third option" somehow means third and final option to you.

 

You are right, when someone states:

there are basically two common views (08/18/2004 06:25 PM - FreeT)

 

followed by :

Or as a 3rd option (08/18/2004 06:25 PM - FreeT),

 

I generally take that to mean that the person is stating that there are three options - not two; not many,many more than two; not possibly 200, but THREE options.

However, if that person has also stated that there are many many more options, signifigantly more than two options, I don't see three as being that number.

BUT, if it turns out that FreeT was simplifying for the sake of argument, and did, as you propose, group many theories together to form the umbrella of "basically two common views", with the understanding that all of the 'others' fell into either one of the two first categories, with 'life is infinite' as the 3rd option, that's fine. I'm just having a hard time seeing how his assertions differ from those of nemo. FreeT had no trouble letting nemo know that there were more than two. How is my pointing out FreeT's apparent inconsistency a 'fishing expedition'?

[IrishEyes]

08/20/2004 09:06 PM Uncle Martin

...that must be intended to increase your post count

 

I am hoping that you meant this as a joke, and were not in any way implying that I pad my post count, like others we *could* mention.

 

And just because you may not like it, that does not mean that:

8/20/2004 09:06 PM Uncle Martin

it has no other value.

 

There are many statements made on this site that I do not agree with, or do not feel are appropriate. However, that does not mean they have no value. Did Tormod make you the 'value' police and forget to mention it to the rest of us?

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 02:29 AM Uncle Martin

 

Well then, eventually you will have the opportunity to do just that. Should be good for four or five pages of what will be VERY redundant arguing.

 

I hope you enjoy yourself!!

 

Don't you dare threaten me!!

 

Actually, if FreeT would explain, I would very much enjoy reading his explanation, as would many others that have been asking for just that in another thread. There would be no arguing, unless he wanted to argue with himself. I would just be interested in reading his explanations.

[Uncle Martin]

No joke,....just my opinion. I think I am still allowed to have one of those.

[IrishEyes]

08/20/2004 09:06 PM Uncle Martin

The "third" that you reference has several question marks following it,.... so now it is you quoting out of context.

 

Ok, Unc, now I see what you mean, and I think we passed each other on our stroll down Semantics... you literally meant that there were several question marks following the 3rd option, and you thought this meant I was intentionally quoting FreeT out of context, right?

As in the following:

 

 

08/20/2004 06:08 PM - Irish

Can you please explain to me which of these is your actual opinion? Do you believe that "either we either accept Abiogenesis or the BIBLICAL Creation has to be true. There are many many other possible explanations" OR "that there are basically two common views held regarding the existence of life...Or as a 3rd option..."???

 

 

Would it have helped if I had inserted all of FreeT's quote? If I had put

08/18/2004 06:25 PM - FreeT

You are attacking Abiogenesis. Now let's see, there are basically two common views held regarding the existence of life, it either came out of nature (Abiogenesis) or was created by some other entity (Creation). Or as a 3rd option, that life has ALWAYS existed. You have stated objection to a natural explaination (Abiogenesis) and have not suggested life being infinite. That leaves an outside agent (Creation). There are many forms of extra-natural Creation. We can narrow the choices down by your own admission. Add to this your original promotion of Abiogenesis as being held by FAITH as if a RELIGION and the brainwashing source jumps right out.

 

so that you could see where Freet says "there are basically two common views" followed in the next sentence with "Or as a 3rd option, that life has ALWAYS existed.", my question might have seemed more valid and less like splitting hairs? But as I condensed his paragraph, deleted what the views actually were, and used (...) to split up the views, it seemed as if I was quoting out of context.

 

Are we just talking around each other, or are you really getting onto me for asking FreeT to clarify what he meant, and implying that I am a poster of foolishness that likes to pad my post count, and enjoy's arguing just for argument's sake?

[geko]

Originally posted by: OpenMindFive

It is easy to creat or think of a religion. This is the hard part....

 

1) finding people who will belive you

 

2) finding witnesses

 

3) Money (yes all religon needs money backing it)

 

4)Proof (may go with witnesses) like the bible

 

5) Making the religion apealing to all, not just a select few.

 

 

 

In my book (self-published... oh dear, what will they say...), for a bit of fun, after talking about Christianity, i created a religion, and yes, i found it pretty easy (but i was light-hearted doing it). I stated it as being a new religion for a new millenium, and thought id share it in this thread.

 

 

SIENEZTITY

 

This religion does not ask you to give anything to me. Basically, to follow and practice Sieneztity you must live your life however you choose, but there are some rules, i.e. sins that you must not commit.

 

The sins are as follows:

 

• Enduring monogamy when you dont want to

 

• Giving without receiving (whether this is tangible or not)

 

• Feeling guilty because of a imposing constraint

 

• Believing in any other religion (please, no cults!)

 

• Giving another precedence over yourself (excluding children to parents, wife to husband and husband to wife)

 

• Not enjoyng this life because of a promise of another

 

• Not allowiing yourself to be happy (this is the sin of all sins!)

 

If you do not stick by the above you are not practicing Sieneztity, i.e. you are sinning, the punishment for which is.... gosh, there isnt one. Oh well, not to worry, huh?

 

The purpose of this religion is to live your life however you choose. This is not sinning according to Sieneztity; it is living a noble life. To live your life to the full. To be pleased that you had one in the first place.

 

To die with a smile on your face and thank you on your lips is one way to know that you used your life that you were given to the fullest! You showed your appreciation.

 

Tell me, if there is a god, do you think that you could say 'thank-you' in a more sincere way?

 

 

 

I wish you luck my dear followers. May the force be with you!

 

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 02:57 AM - Uncle Martin

No joke,....just my opinion. I think I am still allowed to have one of those.

 

Ahhh...here we see the problem... you are THINKING again! Darn it all, Unc. How many times have I tried to tell you to just STOP that 'thinking' stuff?

 

Seriously though, it was not a blatant, subtle, or other type of attempt to pad my numbers. C'mon, padding numbers is the forum equivalent of padding your bra, something I have always thought was rather silly, not to mention false advertising. Of course, Mr. Irish still raves about a certain brassierre I own, but that's not for THIS forum!

[Uncle Martin]

Any woman that considers padding a bra to be silly must be rather buxom to begin with. I think we may have just learned one more little tidbit of info on the mysterious IrishEyes. Now, when you do post your real pic as an avatar it must be a cleavage revealing pic. Oops,.... better stay on topic,... lets create a religion and call it, "the church of the holy cleavage".

[IrishEyes]

Now, when you do post your real pic as an avatar it must be a cleavage revealing pic.

 

Nope, you're just going to have to show up at the HC and take one yourself! But I really like the Church of the Holy Cleavage!! Or would that be "wholly cleavage"?

[wisdumn]

after i post this i'm going to look up the definition of religion but this is my personal belief.

 

whatever you gather throughout life of spirituality and that you hold onto as a system of beliefs about spirtuality, that is your personal religion. you may be baptist,catholic,wiccan, or satanist but regardless, religion is your personal beliefs in relation to spirituality and how you think you should live according to spirituality. the afore mentioned types of religion are Organized Religions.

i do not believe that everyone who is a member of an organized religion follows it exactly the same.

i mean you can be a member of the democratic party but you may not believe and follow everything John Kerry says or believes. in the same way, people of organized religions may have common goals but not necessarily the same beliefs in all areas which is why religion is truly personal.

[wisdumn]

religion: belief and revernce in a supernatural power or powers that created and govern the universe.

source: dictionary.com