Hubris

But according to you, LMD's personal beliefs on this spiritual matter are every bit as valid as science. More seriously, the evangelical Christian movement by and large considers hell to be a very real place (or possibly condition), and I think that collectively they should certainly be considered a "major religion". If you're unfamiliar with that movement - the fastest growing group of Christian faiths in the world today - then I respectfully suggest you have a bit of reading to do. They're most certainly not faking, and as a result there's no real reason to believe LMD is, either.Validity is

I've been talking about intense spiritual experiences. Spirituality in itself is the process of attaining those intense spiritual experiences - something that is a journey, something that people dedicate their entire lives to achieve - throughout all religions. "A state of grace" , "nirvana", "enlightenment" are just some of the names that different religious beliefs have used to describe what scientists now describe as a "spiritual experience" - because regardless of the religion that the different people practice they end up describing the same experience when people test it. And I said ea

Alright, this ends now. I re-read every single one of my posts (and every reply to them) and I found a few things that you just pulled out of thin air and pretended I said. I never once changed my stance on anything, or contradicted myself (if you can show me where I'd be glad to see it).First thing: I never said having a spiritual experience relied on believing in a religious faith. It takes faith that a spiritual experience is possible to make it exist, and that's it. If you don't think spiritual experiences are possible of happening, then you simply won't have one. It takes faith in the exi

Spirituality does not always lead to religious dogma, just because it has in a few cases doesn't mean it always does. I know many spiritual people who have nothing to do with religion. I'd really like to see where you're getting that information from. And the debate over whether or not spirituality is a metaphysical occurence is pointless - that's a concept that is impossible to prove/disprove. I don't care if someone thinks its metaphysical - if it helps them recognize that state of mind then all the better, it makes no real difference, just as long as it doesn't corrupt the experience.And be

My cousin is an art director for that show (and an assistant director for American Dad) and he says that everyone that works on the show will admit that it's a total ripoff of The Simpsons (both of them).

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

Did I say science was concerned with anything but the external (physical) world? No. Science itself is an experience for people though. Practicing science is an experience - that's all I was saying, I think you must have misinterpreted me. Okay, I'm going to clear this up one last time. Spirituality and religion are NOT the same. And it's been proven that a spiritual state of mind is something that when people experience it - it is generally the same. Scientists have done extensive research mapping the brain during people's intense prayer and meditation sessions and they have enough evidence t

Both of the new episodes suck.The Simpsons - in its prime (Season 3 through 8, I think) - was 1000 times better than Family Guy will ever be. Family Guy is funny - but its just not that smart. The Simpsons in its prime was smart AND funny.Anyone ever read the book "Planet Simpson"? Just read through that and you'll understand why Simpsons was so much better than anything else.

You keep proving my point for me..."It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort"That is an EXACT description of spirituality. Spirituality is an observable phenomenon - not in the sense that you can SEE it, but you can EXPERIENCE it. It is a phenomenon in which MANY people can experience similar feelings if they so choose. People who have spiritual awakenings come to a consensus about life - that's why all major religions have the same foundation (forgiveness, peace, love, prayer/meditation, etc). Science i

Yeah, I guess if I figured him for a stone bluff there would be more cards in the deck I would be afraid of making my decision harder on the river. Never really thought about being afraid of the K,Q,J or 7. I guess that's a pretty good argument to raise the flop and the turn.Thanks 'der fellas. I guess it was too high risk.Oh yeah, he had A-5. I felt that he had that when he bet out 500 on the river, but I figured I should call because of his past looseness. Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes.. where would I learn without them.

I am not backpeddling or goal-post shifting here buddy, I just usually have problems getting my ideas out - sorry if I came off the wrong way at the start. The idea that I've been trying to get through since I first posted in this thread is that faith is a personal issue, what you chose to put your faith into is a personal issue, and that believing in science means that you have faith in science - therefore making it a personal issue. It's been getting so muddled though because this has been going on for weeks, so sorry for any confusion.Anyways, your reply just proved the point I was trying t

Hah, anyways, here's the hand. $10 buy-in NLHE MTT on Stars. I want an analysis of the situation, so I'm gonna outline what I did, but I won't tell you what the result was.Villain has been fairly loose/aggressive, had over 3000 in chips but bluffed over half of them off to another player. Typical aggressive Stars donk, I guess.Blinds - 15/30, full tableHero (CO) - T2500Villain (UTG) - T1300PreflopVillain calls T30Hero (9 9 ) raises to T120Button, BB, SB all fold, Villain calls.flop is 5-4-2 rainbowVillain bets T90Hero callsTurn is 5-4-2-[10] rainbowVillain bets T180Hero callsRiver is 5-4-2-1

*Covers ears with hands*LALALALALALALALALALALALALALAOkay, seriously though, I never said you were wrong. I'm saying that this debate is pointless because you can't analyze different criteria using a method that isn't applicable. You cannot... under any circumstance logically analyze science with religion, and vice versa. Peas and carrots, pease and carrots.

OK, I'm willing to accept that you truly believe both of these statements. And given that, your comparison of religious faith to science - which, you'll note, was the topic on which I was disagreeing with you - is completely invalid, because the question of "why?" is most certainly not moot in science. If you're now backpedaling to decouple the two, then we have no real disagreement.My overall point is that you put faith in the question 'why?'. You don't know if asking that question is ultimately the right thing to do - or the correct thing, its just your natural instinct to ask the question.

no, i see you describing a broad, all encompassing definition of faith that isn't of the type most in this thread are talking about.faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a rel