Moderated Will the 2012 Olympic Games in London be held?

[Marcus]

Time is running out, PC. It's time to start gathering all your excuses together. I know you don't think you will need them, but once the Olympics start you will be scrambling.

I say this because I believe your promise not to disappear once the Olympics start, but I also think it very unlikely you will be prepared to denounce your medium.

 

[Ocelot]

Believing in invisible beings that care about you puts you in the same church as PC you're just arguing about what pew is best.

I fear that you comment may be about as relevant as the old canard: "Chairman Mao was an Atheist," The implication being that you're also an atheist therefore you have the same moral basis as a genocidal tyrant.

Skipping forward I see there's been some further back and forth on this.

Lets make no mistake about it. Attacking a person for their beliefs is just as wrong when PC is the target as when Sabrina is the target. Both wrong. It should be beneath you all.

It can be very difficult for a person to separate themselves from their beliefs. Often an attack on your beliefs will feel like an attack on your person and for similarly reasons it can be very difficult to clearly and unambiguously separate an attack on someone's beliefs from an attack on part of their identity. Simply because beliefs do form part of our identities.

There seems to be a bit of a feeding frenzy going on here. Since PC announced that he would renounce his beliefs in this lady if her prophesy (or the prophesy she claims to be a conduit for) is proven wrong, I've lost count of the number of times that people repeated demands that he do exactly that.

Sabrina piped up to point out to PC that even amongst his fellow believers the idea of a fire and brimstone apocalyptic god can be problematic. It was probably the first new and original input to this thread in a dozen or so pages but it exposed a vulnerability* that the savages couldn't resist.

* By which I mean a an exposure for which the savages had a ready attack.

 

[Marcus]

There seems to be a bit of a feeding frenzy going on here. Since PC announced that he would renounce his beliefs in this lady if her prophesy (or the prophesy she claims to be a conduit for) is proven wrong, I've lost count of the number of times that people repeated demands that he do exactly that.

I must have missed that, last week PC seemed to be saying that he would still believe in the medium even after the prophecy failed.

I for one am not demanding anything, merely predicting that he will not disappear like he promised but will present excuses for the failure of the prophecy.

 

[Akhenaten]

I for one am not demanding anything, merely predicting that he will not disappear like he promised but will present excuses for the failure of the prophecy.

3 little roosters, bright and gay.


I don't care what PC believes either. It's not as though it's ever likely to affect anything.

 

[Sabrina]

I fear that you comment may be about as relevant as the old canard: "Chairman Mao was an Atheist," The implication being that you're also an atheist therefore you have the same moral basis as a genocidal tyrant.

Skipping forward I see there's been some further back and forth on this.

Lets make no mistake about it. Attacking a person for their beliefs is just as wrong when PC is the target as when Sabrina is the target. Both wrong. It should be beneath you all.

It can be very difficult for a person to separate themselves from their beliefs. Often an attack on your beliefs will feel like an attack on your person and for similarly reasons it can be very difficult to clearly and unambiguously separate an attack on someone's beliefs from an attack on part of their identity. Simply because beliefs do form part of our identities.

There seems to be a bit of a feeding frenzy going on here. Since PC announced that he would renounce his beliefs in this lady if her prophesy (or the prophesy she claims to be a conduit for) is proven wrong, I've lost count of the number of times that people repeated demands that he do exactly that.

Sabrina piped up to point out to PC that even amongst his fellow believers the idea of a fire and brimstone apocalyptic god can be problematic. It was probably the first new and original input to this thread in a dozen or so pages but it exposed a vulnerability* that the savages couldn't resist.

* By which I mean a an exposure for which the savages had a ready attack.

I would tend to agree with this, overall; I'm sort of guilty of it myself (attacking PC because of his beliefs), which as you say, Ocelot, is really beneath me. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting the pushback on my own beliefs, especially considering I have yet to demand anyone follow them; I was merely trying to point out that PC's God is not mine and vice versa in order to hopefully make him think about what he was posting.

I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, nor do I really expect anyone here to agree with my beliefs wholeheartedly. I'm not out to prove anything to anyone regarding them either. My sole purpose in bringing them up was to showcase the vast difference between PC's God and mine, with the hopeful end state that he would start to think instead of slavishly following the word of a supposed prophet who couldn't offer any real proof of what she was claiming (and yes, I'm aware that I also cannot offer any proof of my beliefs, but I have never once stated my intention to try and prove them; they've been proven to me based on past experiences and my own personal train of thought regarding spiritualism, and that's all I really need. I don't expect anyone else to believe them.) That's all. If someone here takes issue with my beliefs, then so be it; I just won't respond to them.

I would like to offer an apology to PC; I sort of forgot one of the main tenets of the UU faith, namely that everyone's beliefs are their own and should not be made fun of; I'm afraid I wasn't treating your beliefs very kindly in my posts. I would ask, however, that you try to lay off the whole proselytizing thing here; you've seen over the course of this thread that it really won't work on this forum I think. Maybe instead you could try to explain why you believe this woman without attaching the caveat that everyone else should believe her as well, since it's pretty obvious that sort of thing is very... errr... aggravating to people here.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If everyone's beliefs are their own, then they should keep them to themselves. If they (or you, or Akhenaten, or Darat) start proselytizing and taking particular glee in predicting the most horrific event in our global history, then it's open season.

PC isn't getting 80% of what's being said, IMHO. And I'm on the record as approving ridicule as a fair debating tactic when someone is ascribing to the ridiculous.

 

[Explorer]

I would tend to agree with this, overall; I'm sort of guilty of it myself (attacking PC because of his beliefs), which as you say, Ocelot, is really beneath me. I have to admit, I wasn't expecting the pushback on my own beliefs, especially considering I have yet to demand anyone follow them; I was merely trying to point out that PC's God is not mine and vice versa in order to hopefully make him think about what he was posting.

I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, nor do I really expect anyone here to agree with my beliefs wholeheartedly. I'm not out to prove anything to anyone regarding them either.

Sabrina, you have made the point that I was attempting to make, in my case, perhaps a little too recklessly for some people's taste..

As I have found to my own cost and shock, and especially on a skeptic's forum, people pop up out of the blue and admonish for something said and intended in all innocence. This means to survive on this kind of forum, a thick skin needs to be developed, and that restraint in responding, needed to avoid a boring and bickering diatribe (to which the mod will give short shrift) is an essential requirement.

In conclusion, I don't remember anyone asking you to apologise for your beliefs though, or me or anyone else expecting you to provide any proofs for the unprovable. However, PC will be tested very shortly for his beliefs, and like you, I think it will be interesting.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And peace can only be achieved if we follow the only true God.

I don't care. If that's what it takes to get an all-powerful being to not let billions of his children die, I don't give a damn. That is not a being worth even an ounce of my respect, loyalty, or love. Such behavior only deserves disdain.

Jesus cannot stop man from killing his fellow human being. But in the afterlife, that is when Jesus will settle accounts with people. Jesus gave the person the freedom to do evil or to do good.

Two things: 1) you don't need to tell me that Jesus is a fairly impotent figure in your religion, and 2) as I understand, he actually isn't responsible for humanity's free will.

Your god's idea of free will is "you're free to worship me and nothing else, including nothing itself, or be punished." How is that not offensive?

 

[Explorer]

=
Lets make no mistake about it. Attacking a person for their beliefs is just as wrong when PC is the target as when Sabrina is the target. Both wrong. It should be beneath you all.

You have however made a mistake. Sabrina was not "attacked" for her beliefs. She has since admitted that she was (in her own retropect, inadvisably) using her god in comparison with PC's god. All that was said was that both PCs god, and her god, are unproven and unprovable. To use one unproven to complain about another unproven, seems rather fruitless, and that was the important point that was being made. If this is interpreted as an "attack", try in comparison visiting a few other skeptic sites that specialise in debunking religion, and you will find what unapologetic attacks really sound like.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I just ran a few tests over in the Test subforum pasting from Word in a variety of ways. I used Verdana in Word but was unable to get a font tag in a JREF post. I'm on a PC; maybe Peace is on a Mac and that works differently.

What if he composed it in Word, then saved it as html, then copied and pasted from the html source document into his browser?

Even so, why would someone compose their forum posts in Word? He's still accountable for what he puts into the message field, and all the font tags are really annoying (and pointless).

 

[Marcus]

3 little roosters, bright and gay.


I don't care what PC believes either. It's not as though it's ever likely to affect anything.

There is some drama in guessing what form the post-nonapocalyptic gyrations will take, in the same way that one can always look forward to the excuses of MDC claimants.

 

[Ocelot]

I must have missed that, last week PC seemed to be saying that he would still believe in the medium even after the prophecy failed.

These are the first three examples I was able to dig up.

If World War III does not start before the 2012 Olympic Games in London, then I will say that He is a false god

20120614.1715

There is only one true God and the rest are false gods. So if you will worship a god, be sure He is the true God.

The false gods does not give any prophecy. If it fails, his being a false god will be exposed. Is this logical enough?

20120626.2350

@Lamuella, #686

I will sure do. If what I impart to you would not happen, I will recant what I said and apologize to all of you and will stop what I do on the Internet. I will search for the only true God.

I for one am not demanding anything, merely predicting that he will not disappear like he promised but will present excuses for the failure of the prophecy.

Good for you. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if you're right. However my money's on him disappearing.

 

[PeaceCrusader]

20120711.0200

This is what I got browsing the Internet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
titled "Q&A: South China Sea dispute"
27 June 2012 Last updated at 16:21 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18778437
titled "Asean seeks China agreement on South China Sea code"
10 July 2012 Last updated at 02:39 GMT

You may or may not read them. I believe that this dispute is what the Holy Spirit who we talk to is referring to – the dispute at the South China Sea where the nuclear World War III would start. We just have two Wednesdays left – today, 2012-07-04, and next, 2012-07-11. Which one will it be? I firmly believe that it will be one of these dates.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My sole purpose in bringing them up was to showcase the vast difference between PC's God and mine,

And that is a claim that I challenge. Just because it's your religious belief (or just because your religious belief is more "mainstream") doesn't mean it's immune from rational criticism.

I stand by my challenge. Beliefs about the supernatural are all irrational. There is not a vast difference in such claims, since they're all beliefs held regardless of (or even despite) the evidence.

And the defense Paul proffered, that your claim is beyond criticism because it was something you only said "in passing" or that it was only a "personal belief" (so are beliefs that are proselytized--including the belief that it's good and right to proselytize), is obviously contrary to the facts. You made a claim on a skeptical forum, and your claim is being challenged. You certainly have the right not to defend your claim, but your claim is certainly not out-of-bounds for critical responses.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Right, 99! The old bomb-in-a-bon-bon trick. Second time I've fallen for that this week.

You may or may not read them. I believe that this dispute is what the Holy Spirit who we talk to is referring to – the dispute at the South China Sea where the nuclear World War III would start.

You are factually wrong. The stories you cite have nothing to do with a nuclear war.

We just have two Wednesdays left – today, 2012-07-04, and next, 2012-07-11. Which one will it be?

Neither.

I firmly believe that it will be one of these dates.

And when it fails to happen, will you admit simply that you were wrong? Here you state clearly that this is your own firm belief. No equivocating, please. Just commit to admitting that you were wrong when this fails to happen on either of these two dates.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, can we please stop bashing Sabrina just because she holds personal spiritual beliefs.

No one is bashing Sabrina. We are attacking (or as I prefer to say "challenging") her claim.

Again, you seem to think some set of religious beliefs (or claims about them) are beyond criticism. Why is this?

 

[dafydd]

I firmly believe that it will be one of these dates.

It won't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So if you will worship a god, be sure He is the true God.

Formula 409.

But you have already admitted you aren't sure. You have said that if when this prophecy proves to be wrong, it will be because you were mistaken about what is the one true god and will continue your search for that one true god (though you still haven't given a rational answer as to why).

So, are you sure, or are you unsure?

If you are sure, then will you commit to admitting simply that you were wrong if when the prophecy doesn't happen? If you were sure, you should have no trouble making this commitment, since you are sure you won't have to. If not, then you are not heeding your own advice.

 

[Paul]

And that is a claim that I challenge. Just because it's your religious belief (or just because your religious belief is more "mainstream") doesn't mean it's immune from rational criticism.

I don't believe anyone is claiming that it is, this thread, however, is not about Sabrina or her religious beliefs. Frankly I don't know what's got into people if they think attacking anyone who even hints at spiritual belief is a reasonable way to live.

I stand by my challenge. Beliefs about the supernatural are all irrational.

I actually agree with you on that point, but I don't attack strangers just because I disagree with them, that seems extremely intolerant.

There is not a vast difference in such claims, since they're all beliefs held regardless of (or even despite) the evidence.

If that were the case, there would be one monotheistic religion and peace on earth.

And the defense Paul proffered,

It's not a defence, it was a request for a little civility.

that your claim is beyond criticism because it was something you only said "in passing" or that it was only a "personal belief"

I didn't say anyones claims on anything are beyond criticism, I did however point out that attacking someone merely for explaining their personal opinion of PCs claims was uncalled for.

You made a claim on a skeptical forum, and your claim is being challenged.

Are you going to seek out anyone on the forums who has ever expressed any sort of spiritual or religious belief and 'challenge' them as well?

 

[Paul]

Again, you seem to think some set of religious beliefs (or claims about them) are beyond criticism. Why is this?

It's not the challenging of claims that is the problem, it is the fact that you seem to think that just because you don't believe you can aggressively challenge anyone you like any time you like whether the challenge is part of the debate or a derailing sideshow.