WHY can't the religions bring the mankind forward ?

[Arising_uk]

By winning, I refer to winning an argument by obfuscating what the other has said, purposely getting it wrong, and forcing a different conversation than what it was originally about.

You'd have to show me where I've done this purposely? If I've misunderstood what another has said then they can tell me and, hopefully, I'll correct myself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Sorry maden, but anything that is only to be found in a man's head, cannot be 'proven' one way or the other! Bob relies on that, as does anyone that either claims there is or is not a god.

Quite true, which is why I furnish mystical credentials as spiritual certification.

Bob I love you, .

Why don't you two get a room? There's no one on the Forum more suited to Bob than you. Neither of you have anything decent or meaningful to say; you are both stuffed up with your own importance, and both bring down the standard of PN.

[bobevenson]

You absolutely have no credentials Bob. At least any that one should pay any credence.

By credentials, I'm talking about events that are so unlikely to happen that they are the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if one offers a series of such events related to a spiritual topic, the combined probability of which is equivalent to finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara desert, don't you agree that person should be given the benefit of the doubt?

[Dalek Prime]

By winning, I refer to winning an argument by obfuscating what the other has said, purposely getting it wrong, and forcing a different conversation than what it was originally about.

You'd have to show me where I've done this purposely? If I've misunderstood what another has said then they can tell me and, hopefully, I'll correct myself.

Perhaps too it is the quoting system. As it's only three deep, earlier arguments get jettisoned, and the flavour gets lost. I have a code solution to this, and may try to have it introduced into the software itself, if phpBB is interested as a switchable alternative.

I won't be searching for examples, but I'll point it out, politely, if I see it happen. Fair enough?

[Arising_uk]

...
I won't be searching for examples, but I'll point it out, politely, if I see it happen. Fair enough?

Yes.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You absolutely have no credentials Bob. At least any that one should pay any credence.

By credentials, I'm talking about events that are so unlikely to happen that they are the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if one offers a series of such events related to a spiritual topic, the combined probability of which is equivalent to finding a specific grain of sand in the Sahara desert, don't you agree that person should be given the benefit of the doubt?

Bob you wouldn't believe the number of 'coincidences' I've witnessed, that would cause 'some' to jump to conclusions. But I refuse to jump, wanting to instead keep my feet firmly planted on the ground. You, my friend, seem to be flying pretty damn high!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry maden, but anything that is only to be found in a man's head, cannot be 'proven' one way or the other! Bob relies on that, as does anyone that either claims there is or is not a god.

Quite true, which is why I furnish mystical credentials as spiritual certification.

Bob I love you, .

Why don't you two get a room? There's no one on the Forum more suited to Bob than you. Neither of you have anything decent or meaningful to say; you are both stuffed up with your own importance, and both bring down the standard of PN.

So says the asshole elitist, from behind the safety of his computer; a fool that is so blind he doesn't have a clue about himself.

And that being said, I love you too.
Because in my book all are loved equally, even fools! For they know not what they do!

BTW, how's that BMW (penis) of yours doing?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Kim, you have ALWAYS been trying, at least with respect to my patience. Come on, you know that! And I see that you use that to WIN! That's the problem with you, all you care about is winning; it surely seems! As you'll say ANYTHING, even lie, speculate, in order to do so. You twist and turn ones words to suit your goal, which is why your little, "ones meaning is the response they get" is such bullshit! In fact: your response is anything that you can manufacture, so as to cloud the waters of "effective" communication. And that's the truth of it, from my down to earth perspective!

Of course I'll still always thank you for engaging me when you have, I love a challenge. It's just that sometimes you take the BS way too far!

You talk bollocks and that's why you get the responses you do.
NO! I piss people off, because I take argument seriously. I'm not here to make any friends, you know that.

Anything that doesn't agree with you is bullocks, I mean that which is thrust in your face as being flat out wrong. We're all that way. I just happen to be much more gritty, and in ones face about things. I won't compromise when I see BS.

I'll give you that when someone is seemingly more civil, and not questioning your abilities directly, you yield ever so slightly, (you're almost there). Even with me you've been 'giving' on occasion, thanks for that.

The rest is just your nonsense
Only to your way of thinking, your ignorance. Kim, we each have our forte's! I'm sure you know much more of what's written in philosophy books than I, because you were in school longer than I. Which only has bearing on the truth of things, relative to their words agreeing with it absolutely. In the time that I was in school, especially studying the presocratics, I laughed my ass off at some of their beliefs, their so called thought experiments. And I understood that it was all they could muster 'in those days'. We've learned so much since then.

as you have your pet theories all in place to explain every reply you get.
Not pet theories! That you call them so, could be your ignorance showing. And I'm saying that it sometimes is, in certain circumstances. But then you actually believed, at least for a time, that your response necessarily contains the meaning of ones words. As it was stated, you couldn't have been more wrong. I saw that your short answer for the dynamics of communication, as written, appealed to your sense of self appreciation more than it conveyed any truth value associated with your long well thought out version. Because of my psychology exposure, it was telling of the extent of your love of self, sometimes smiting others wrongly. And then I've witnessed your interactions with others definitely demonstrating it, without question. And I'm doing this in an open forum so it's BOUND you piss you off, self defense mechanisms rearing their ugly heads, just like mine, and everyone else's! People don't like my way of getting in their face, it's that simple!

All you'll see with me is questions about what I don't understand and bite if I get snotty responses.
Yeah, but sometimes, It seems that you do that just to wear people down, seemingly knowing full well what was meant. And you can be quite snotty/sarcastic/demeaning out of the starting gates, yourself. I believe it's best if people lead by example instead, showing great tolerance for those that deal otherwise! At least those are the people I respect the most.

Take a good look, I'm about the only person here who says he is wrong when shown so.
Yes, I've already given you this. Sometimes you're capable, sometimes you're not!

Take what you said in the previous post, I'm more than willing to look at this 'evidence' you have about my words and to see if what you say is true, so post them.
My biggest mistake was my cataloging. Of course I could search for any proof here that hasn't been deleted. But when all is said and done I really don't care to take the time. Would you? Of course not! Since most of what many post here is meant to save face, I trust that deep inside you actually remember, thus know I'm right, which is all that really matters. If you 'really' can't remember, then I'm 'really' sorry for you!

That others view simple questions as such threats,
Not me!

and in your case as some kind of psychological drive,
Everything is psychologically driven, Kim! It's really about knowing specifically what's doing the driving. And most don't have a clue as to the truth of what's in their own head.

is to my mind due to them, and you, not having had a philosophical training
Not true, as I've had some.

and as such find questions about one's thoughts a threat to one's sense of self.
We're all this way, Kim! We all want to put our best foot forward, be important, be considered, contribute. And when criticized in a bad manner, obviously most take it as an affront to their abilities, as their abilities is what lead to their conclusions that are being stomped upon. You've displayed the exact same emotions, Kim!

Most appear to want agreement to their ideas
In truth, everyone does! But maybe in some cases it's not about agreement, as much as it's about consideration. And I mean that in several ways!

and as such should be upon a forum other than one that proclaims itself about Philosophy now,
Then no one would be here. Some are just more confident, caring, sensitive, bold, laid back, high strung, etc, than others.

as now-a-days it's about critique.
Nothing wrong with 'constructive' criticism. The problem is when it's destructive, and you're one that loves to deal out the destructive type, sometimes. I think the best debater is one that is never destructive, always constructive, ever considerate of the differences between us. As I've said they're the ones I respect the most, as the more strong and adult of the lot. At least that's what the truly wise would aspire to become. To strongly lead by example, being considerate of our differences, while actually being much more effectual with their words, in being so.

Oh! And I like teasing the loons and trolls.
But unless you know them well, having some sort of actual rapport, that type of thing should remain reserved for when you do. At least in the interest of our differences.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you're both similar in this regard. Both of you are willful, and want to win at any price, using any distraction or bullshit to redirect the argument. ...

Bollocks. I don't care about 'winning', whatever the hell that can be in this format? I care about clarity of thought and words and as such ask questions where I don't understand and put my point where I think the critique is valid, otherwise I just state my opinion if I find interest in the topic.

By winning, I refer to winning an argument by obfuscating what the other has said, purposely getting it wrong, and forcing a different conversation than what it was originally about.

I disagree. Not about your view of me, see it your own way, it makes you funnier that way!
I disagree as to what you and many may consider obfuscation. I see that many things are connected that many are oblivious to. I see that people like you that say such things are just not privy to the connections. So in essence the more one complains about such things, the more they may be displaying their ignorance, to those that understand these connections. Of course I'll defend your right to do things your own way. It makes things much more interesting, despite the fact that the discourse can then go absolutely nowhere.

[Hobbes' Choice]

BTW, how's that BMW (penis) of yours doing?

SOB is penis obsessed.

[manden]

Why can't the religions bring the mankind forward ?

You can also say : Why can't primitive human beings like you bring the mankind forward ?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why can't the religions bring the mankind forward ?

You can also say : Why can't primitive human beings like you bring the mankind forward ?

Mankind has been brought forward by the rejection of religion.
The evidence of history is against you.

[Obvious Leo]

Mankind has been brought forward by the rejection of religion.

Yes. Any student of human history can see that the progress of homo sapiens as a species over the past few centuries is directly correlated to the steady decline in cultural significance of religious belief. This applies not only to the beliefs of formal religions but also to beliefs of any kind in the supernatural. Human progress can only be driven by advances in human knowledge and the most persistent impediment to the advance of human knowledge has always been the assumption that it has its origins external to physical reality itself. Nowadays only the theists and the physicists cling to this obsolete notion.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Mankind has been brought forward by the rejection of religion.

Yes. Any student of human history can see that the progress of homo sapiens as a species over the past few centuries is directly correlated to the steady decline in cultural significance of religious belief. This applies not only to the beliefs of formal religions but also to beliefs of any kind in the supernatural. Human progress can only be driven by advances in human knowledge and the most persistent impediment to the advance of human knowledge has always been the assumption that it has its origins external to physical reality itself. Nowadays only the theists and the physicists cling to this obsolete notion.

Indeed and it is exactly the same problem that means that Manden is totally blind to this simple and obvious truth.

[Obvious Leo]

I don't think manden is a real person, Hobbes. I'm fairly certain that he's a Tralfamadorian infiltrator impersonating a human being with nefarious intent.