Oooh. Do you know what this is evidence of?

[Calavera]

Now that's what I call a good imagination. Me having religious faith all of a sudden (after all those recent years of condemning it).

[RageBeoulve]

Now that's what I call a good imagination. Me having religious faith all of a sudden (after all those recent years of condemning it).

Aha! Condemning religions you don't approve of. You're going to tell me right now that you without a doubt do not carry a torch for an ideology? That you don't commit to it blindly? That you don't have faith in it?

[Calavera]

You did say religious faith. So don't change the argument now.

[RageBeoulve]

You did say religious faith. So don't change the argument now.

If you have unquestionable faith, its a religion. Google religious faith:

faith  (fth)
n.
1.  Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2.  Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3.  Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4.  often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5.  The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6.  A set of principles or beliefs.
Idiom:
 in faith
Indeed; truly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids; see  bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]

[Calavera]

None of them support what you're saying. See? You're doing it again, filling in gaps with your imagination.

One can argue I have faith, but it's not a religious one.

[Beardy McFuckface]

Is Rage turning into the next Scrap?

[RageBeoulve]

None of them support what you're saying. See? You're doing it again, filling in gaps with your imagination.

One can argue I have faith, but it's not a religious one.

None of what? And yes faith is religion. That's been proven with the flying spaghetti monster example.

[RageBeoulve]

Is Rage turning into the next Scrap?

I'll get to you when i'm done talking to Calavera, if you want to discuss something. Otherwise, might I direct you to a local playground?

[Calavera]

None of them support what you're saying. See? You're doing it again, filling in gaps with your imagination.

One can argue I have faith, but it's not a religious one.

None of what? And yes faith is religion. That's been proven with the flying spaghetti monster example.

You say I have a religious faith. At least one of the definitions you listed restricts faith to religion only. I don't have a religion, so according to that definition, I don't even have faith.

And I don't see what the FSM has to do with anything about me having faith or not. I don't even know anyone who takes the FSM seriously. You do realize it's just a joke, right?

[RageBeoulve]

None of them support what you're saying. See? You're doing it again, filling in gaps with your imagination.

One can argue I have faith, but it's not a religious one.

None of what? And yes faith is religion. That's been proven with the flying spaghetti monster example.

You say I have a religious faith. At least one of the definitions you listed restricts faith to religion only. I don't have a religion, so according to that definition, I don't even have faith.

And I don't see what the FSM has to do with anything about me having faith or not. I don't even know anyone who takes the FSM seriously. You do realize it's just a joke, right?

Its a joke to people with common sense. There are those that believe in the equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster, and that is my point. Humorously enough, you and schleed call me biased but you only focus on one aspect of religion for the purpose of convenience. I've got news for you, pal. Arguing with me is not very convenient, because nothing like that gets past me.

re·li·gion
  [ri-lij-uhn]  Show IPA 

noun 
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 

4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 

5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Above is the definition of religion. Lets take this apart bit by bit, shall we? We'll even start with the part that seems to make you think religion doesn't apply to you.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In bold is the part you seem to be confused about. You seem to think that because your ideologies don't focus around a magical sky daddy or the creation of the universe, you get a free pass to have blind faith and ignore the scientific method. Well hold on there, that's a single fraction of the definition.

usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

Do I need to point out anything here? Do you understand, or do I have to get all mean and use "shock value" to strengthen my argument? (I believe that's how you put it.  )

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

A hivemind, basically. Much like the hardcore liberal or conservative dumbass structure now. These idiots agree on a set of principles usually invented by a few rich criminals, and blindly follow it. Still doesn't sound familiar? Lets keep going, hmmm?

the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion

They call themselves a name. Monk or nun. They adapt their life to suit a set of prefabricated principles and beliefs. Liberal or conservative, Repugnican or derpocrat. Hurr durr i'm a proud liberal an I want you to stop killing the poor so I LOVE OBAMA CARE. I saw on the news that a pretty lady tolded me Obama care is going to give poor people health coverage. I believe! Hope and change! *waves flag*

Is that you?

the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I can go deeper into this, if you're going to be stubborn about it. Do you really deny you're following a path of religious zealotry, much like what has happened several times throughout human history? Its called something different now, but its still religion, dude. Don't make me have to get all rough and hurt your precious feelings or whatever. I wouldn't want to have to say anything too "shocking", now would I? That being said, I will leave one little nugget of shock value. This "modern religion" got its meathooks pretty far into Nazi Germany, dontcha know. Adolf hitler was treated pretty much like a "messiah". There were ceremonies carried out in his name, monuments(shrines) built in his honor, etc. One aspect of this phenomenon was the chilling pattern of training children to be obedient and look at hitler as he was some sort of a divine being. The Nazi youth?

Obama Youth Brigade March in Formation

www.CampFEMA.com - Obama Youth Army

Hows that for "shock value"? I got more. LOTS more. Want to get into it?

[Calavera]

Its a joke to people with common sense. There are those that believe in the equivalent of a flying spaghetti monster, and that is my point. Humorously enough, you and schleed call me biased but you only focus on one aspect of religion for the purpose of convenience. I've got news for you, pal. Arguing with me is not very convenient, because nothing like that gets past me.

That's because you don't feel too embarrassed to make retarded arguments.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

In bold is the part you seem to be confused about. You seem to think that because your ideologies don't focus around a magical sky daddy or the creation of the universe, you get a free pass to have blind faith and ignore the scientific method. Well hold on there, that's a single fraction of the definition.

None of the definition supports your convoluted argument in any way. So I don't see the point, but let's play ...

usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

Do I need to point out anything here? Do you understand, or do I have to get all mean and use "shock value" to strengthen my argument? (I believe that's how you put it.  )

You cut that piece of definition out of context now. Keep it within context, Rage. Remember that the first fragment is about a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.

Why ignore it now and pretend it's not a key part of the definition? Do you enjoy being intellectually dishonest, Rage?

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

A hivemind, basically. Much like the hardcore liberal or conservative dumbass structure now. These idiots agree on a set of principles usually invented by a few rich criminals, and blindly follow it. Still doesn't sound familiar? Lets keep going, hmmm?

Nope, still doesn't make your shit gold.

the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion

They call themselves a name. Monk or nun. They adapt their life to suit a set of prefabricated principles and beliefs. Liberal or conservative, Repugnican or derpocrat. Hurr durr i'm a proud liberal an I want you to stop killing the poor so I LOVE OBAMA CARE. I saw on the news that a pretty lady tolded me Obama care is going to give poor people health coverage. I believe! Hope and change! *waves flag*

I think you need to look up both "nun" and "monk". Why don't we have an argument about those terms as well, eh?

Is that you?

Maybe, maybe not. It's a stupid question either way.

the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I can go deeper into this, if you're going to be stubborn about it. Do you really deny you're following a path of religious zealotry, much like what has happened several times throughout human history? Its called something different now, but its still religion, dude. Don't make me have to get all rough and hurt your precious feelings or whatever. I wouldn't want to have to say anything too "shocking", now would I? That being said, I will leave one little nugget of shock value. This "modern religion" got its meathooks pretty far into Nazi Germany, dontcha know. Adolf hitler was treated pretty much like a "messiah". There were ceremonies carried out in his name, monuments(shrines) built in his honor, etc. One aspect of this phenomenon was the chilling pattern of training children to be obedient and look at hitler as he was some sort of a divine being. The Nazi youth?

How this is relevant to whether or not I have religious faith is beyond me.

Obama Youth Brigade March in Formation

www.CampFEMA.com - Obama Youth Army

Hows that for "shock value"? I got more. LOTS more. Want to get into it?

Problem is you're too impulsive to sit back and consider if you really do have a valid point to make.

I can play along with you if that's what you want, but you'd do well to compensate for some of the retarded stuff you've been coming up with lately.

[RageBeoulve]

That's because you don't feel too embarrassed to make retarded arguments.

In your retarded opinion. 

None of the definition supports your convoluted argument in any way. So I don't see the point, but let's play ...

Actually, ALL of it does. Only one small portion resembles the point you want to make, and like any zealot you cling to that part for dear life, ignoring the rest of it.

You cut that piece of definition out of context now. Keep it within context, Rage. Remember that the first fragment is about a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.

Why ignore it now and pretend it's not a key part of the definition? Do you enjoy being intellectually dishonest, Rage?

Exactly. The first fragment. That does not give you an excuse to ignore the rest of the definition, which happens to be most of it. Do you enjoy being intellectually dishonest, Calavera?

Nope, still doesn't make your shit gold.

Pretty sure i'm the one pointing out YOUR shit is not gold, buddy.

I think you need to look up both "nun" and "monk". Why don't we have an argument about those terms as well, eh?

If you like, but I won't allow your divisive shit in that either. I'll point out every single manipulation, every passive aggressive ploy. You won't win this, bub.

Maybe, maybe not. It's a stupid question either way.

Because your opinion matters more than mine in the big picture, right? 

How this is relevant to whether or not I have religious faith is beyond me.

Its crystal clear to me. Guess you're not as smart as you think, buddy.

Problem is you're too impulsive to sit back and consider if you really do have a valid point to make.

I can play along with you if that's what you want, but you'd do well to compensate for some of the retarded stuff you've been coming up with lately.

HAH. Now I've gotcha. I'm calling you out on that.

[Calavera]

I repeat:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The first fragment, which you conveniently dismissed, when you tried to apply the rest of the definition to me, is essential for that definition to work. It's not optional.

It's like you arguing that the Qur'an states there is no God when the Qur'an actually says that there is no god but God. See the difference here?

I consider it a form of intellectual dishonesty to cut a quote or phrase out of context.

Also, consider that you're rendering words meaningless by manipulating them and playing around with the accepted definitions.

And now I'm tempted to quote one of the footnotes in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith just to show you how absurd your arguing here is. So here we go:

A case in point: I have selected another book at random, this time from the cookbook aisle of a bookstore. The book is A Taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific. Therein I have discovered an as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for wok-seared fish and shrimp cakes with ogo-tomato relish, we need only study its list of ingredients to know that we are in the presence of an unrivaled spiritual intelligence:

snapper filet, cubed
3 teaspoons chopped scallions
salt and freshly ground black pepper
a dash of cayenne pepper
2 teaspoons chopped fresh ginger
1 teaspoon minced garlic
8 shrimp, peeled, deveined, and cubed
½ cup heavy cream; 2 eggs, lightly beaten
3 teaspoons rice wine; 2 cups bread crumbs
3 tablespoons vegetable oil; 2 ½ cups ogo tomato relish

The snapper filet, of course, is the individual himself—you and I—awash in the sea of existence. But here we find it cubed, which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and spirit. Three teaspoons of chopped scallions further partakes of the cubic symmetry, suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our
being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, and spirit need to be tended to with the same care.

Salt and freshly ground black pepper: here we have the perennial invocation of opposites—the white and the black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfill the recipe for spiritual life. Nothing, after all, can be excluded from the human experience (this seems to be a Tantric text). What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains, which is to say that our good and bad qualities are born of the tiniest actions. Thus, we are not good or evil in general,
but only by virtue of innumerable moments, which color the stream of our being by force of repetition.

A dash of cayenne pepper: clearly, being of such robust color and flavor, this signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. What shall we make of the ambiguity of its measurement? How large is a dash? Here we must rely upon the wisdom of the universe at large. The teacher himself will know precisely what we need by way of instruction. And it is at just
this point in the text that the ingredients that bespeak the heat of spiritual endeavor are added to the list—for after a dash of cayenne pepper, we find two teaspoons of chopped fresh ginger and one teaspoon of minced garlic. These form an isosceles trinity of sorts, signifying the two sides of our spiritual nature (male and female) united with the object meditation.

Next comes eight shrimp—peeled, deveined, and cubed. The eight shrimp, of course, represent the eight worldly concerns that every spiritual aspirant must decry: fame and shame; loss and gain; pleasure and pain; praise and blame. Each needs to be deveined, peeled, and cubed—that is, purged of its power to entrance us and incorporated on the path
of practice.

That such metaphorical acrobatics can be performed on almost any text—and that they are therefore meaningless—should be obvious. Here we have scripture as Rorschach blot: wherein the occultist can find his magical principles perfectly reflected; the conventional mystic can find his recipe for transcendence; and the totalitarian dogmatist can hear God telling him to suppress the intelligence and creativity of others. This is not to say that no author has ever couched spiritual or mystical information
in allegory or ever produced a text that requires a strenuous hermeneutical effort to be made sense of. If you pick up a copy of
Finnegans Wake, for instance, and imagine that you have found therein allusions to various cosmogonic myths and alchemical schemes, chances are that you have, because Joyce put them there. But to dredge scripture in this manner and discover the occasional pearl is little more than a literary game.

Hopefully, you see what's absurd about this.

Oh, and here's a relevant YouTube video for you:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqvUkmnDVkM‎

[RageBeoulve]

I repeat:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The first fragment, which you conveniently dismissed, when you tried to apply the rest of the definition to me, is essential for that definition to work. It's not optional.

It's like you arguing that the Qur'an states there is no God when the Qur'an actually says that there is no god but God. See the difference here?

I consider it a form of intellectual dishonesty to cut a quote or phrase out of context.

Also, consider that you're rendering words meaningless by manipulating them and playing around with the accepted definitions.

And now I'm tempted to quote one of the footnotes in Sam Harris' book The End of Faith just to show you how absurd your arguing here is. So here we go:

A case in point: I have selected another book at random, this time from the cookbook aisle of a bookstore. The book is A Taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific. Therein I have discovered an as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for wok-seared fish and shrimp cakes with ogo-tomato relish, we need only study its list of ingredients to know that we are in the presence of an unrivaled spiritual intelligence:

snapper filet, cubed
3 teaspoons chopped scallions
salt and freshly ground black pepper
a dash of cayenne pepper
2 teaspoons chopped fresh ginger
1 teaspoon minced garlic
8 shrimp, peeled, deveined, and cubed
½ cup heavy cream; 2 eggs, lightly beaten
3 teaspoons rice wine; 2 cups bread crumbs
3 tablespoons vegetable oil; 2 ½ cups ogo tomato relish

The snapper filet, of course, is the individual himself—you and I—awash in the sea of existence. But here we find it cubed, which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and spirit. Three teaspoons of chopped scallions further partakes of the cubic symmetry, suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our
being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, and spirit need to be tended to with the same care.

Salt and freshly ground black pepper: here we have the perennial invocation of opposites—the white and the black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfill the recipe for spiritual life. Nothing, after all, can be excluded from the human experience (this seems to be a Tantric text). What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains, which is to say that our good and bad qualities are born of the tiniest actions. Thus, we are not good or evil in general,
but only by virtue of innumerable moments, which color the stream of our being by force of repetition.

A dash of cayenne pepper: clearly, being of such robust color and flavor, this signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. What shall we make of the ambiguity of its measurement? How large is a dash? Here we must rely upon the wisdom of the universe at large. The teacher himself will know precisely what we need by way of instruction. And it is at just
this point in the text that the ingredients that bespeak the heat of spiritual endeavor are added to the list—for after a dash of cayenne pepper, we find two teaspoons of chopped fresh ginger and one teaspoon of minced garlic. These form an isosceles trinity of sorts, signifying the two sides of our spiritual nature (male and female) united with the object meditation.

Next comes eight shrimp—peeled, deveined, and cubed. The eight shrimp, of course, represent the eight worldly concerns that every spiritual aspirant must decry: fame and shame; loss and gain; pleasure and pain; praise and blame. Each needs to be deveined, peeled, and cubed—that is, purged of its power to entrance us and incorporated on the path
of practice.

That such metaphorical acrobatics can be performed on almost any text—and that they are therefore meaningless—should be obvious. Here we have scripture as Rorschach blot: wherein the occultist can find his magical principles perfectly reflected; the conventional mystic can find his recipe for transcendence; and the totalitarian dogmatist can hear God telling him to suppress the intelligence and creativity of others. This is not to say that no author has ever couched spiritual or mystical information
in allegory or ever produced a text that requires a strenuous hermeneutical effort to be made sense of. If you pick up a copy of
Finnegans Wake, for instance, and imagine that you have found therein allusions to various cosmogonic myths and alchemical schemes, chances are that you have, because Joyce put them there. But to dredge scripture in this manner and discover the occasional pearl is little more than a literary game.

Hopefully, you see what's absurd about this.

Oh, and here's a relevant YouTube video for you:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqvUkmnDVkM‎

You are desperate, dude. Even the first part of the definition could be argued in my favor. I merely focused on the rest of it to show you that you are ignoring the majority of the definition. Like a religious person, you cling to only the fragments of information that make you comfortable and ignore the rest. That was my point. Lets look at the part you seem to worship right now.

I repeat:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

Lets see. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of SOCIETY, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies.

I replace one word, and my point is proven. One single word makes my above arguments perfectly valid, because I did not claim you worshipped a god, did I? I claimed you worshipped an ideology created by a set of superhuman agencies which you would never question or challenge. I can keep paraphrasing this forever, and I will. Its become obvious to me that you're going to throw a fit for a while like a baby, stubbornly trying to impose your viewpoint in my threads and on me, but I won't put up with it.

I'm going to continue to grind your face in that shit until you stop pretending it isn't there. You worship something. You are religious.

[Calavera]

Google's definition of cat is:

a small domesticated carnivorous mammal with soft fur, a short snout, and retractile claws. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.

According to Rage, that definition could be twisted to describe a fish as well, like in the following modified definition:

a small domesticated fish with scales, gills, and fins. It is widely kept as a pet or for catching mice, and many breeds have been developed.

carnivorous mammal = fish;
scales = soft fur;
short snout = gills;
retractile claws = fins;

It could also be modified to describe you, Rage.

Therefore, Rage, you are a fish and a cat. And therefore, a catfish. And if you stubbornly insist you are not, I will be even more stubborn and insist that you are, you bloody catfish.