MTG Salvation

Who would have guessed our circular conversation would have come full circle, not me.

Back to "@Soron: Rhetorical question and irony ftw. :muh:"

Enough of this.
There is a time for many words, and there is also a time for sleep.
Homer.
The Odyssey.

Read it? Heard of it? It's good, isn't it? (If not, do read it.)

I am not really known for not being work safe, so do not worry about that.

I am telling you I did get your post, and that I did not get Sapphire Tri's. The "it" I do not get has nothing to do with your posts. That is what I am saying.

I am guessing I understand you more than you know MM. I could tell you my guesses about you if you want, and you can tell me which I got right and which I got wrong. (I am afraid most of it will be obvious, however.)
I am sure the reverse is also true, if you want to go first; or exclusively, if you don't want to hear my guesses.
Or we could just continue this "tit for tat" go around we are on now. But its beginning to bore me, so I can only assume the same is true for you.

Quote from soronthebeast »

Well, apparently, I have mod powers, here, on this thread.

Of course.

This post is just a "rambling," but this is my blog, so I will ramble on if I want

So long as you keep it clean and safe-for-work (or is it family-friendly?).

Eds: You still didn't get what you didn't get from my post, and you now fail to concede it.


Overestimation.

Well, apparently, I have mod powers, here, on this thread.

I understand what you were saying MM, I was talking about Tri's comment, that I did not get. (which is why I asked about it)

I wrote this post here first. Felt it was a good post, saw that some people, like Tri, looked at it, but no one seemed to have a 'counter' response to it. So I felt I must have made a good point, and posted here, in my blog, in case I needed to refer to it again. (I often refer to my blog in debates on the debate forum)

I will admit most of my philosophy is "obvious" but I find there are a staggering amount of people that overlook the obvious, and even complain about it.
I do not know why Tri, after looking at my post and not responding, felt fit to start responding here on by blog. I could speculate, but I do not know.

This post is just a "rambling," but this is my blog, so I will ramble on if I want

Reading over this.

OLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Quote from StB »

I try, and like everything else, get varying degrees of success.

Eh.
Varying degrees of success.

To half-seriously read your comment, I didn't get any of it; but what I'm saying is, 'of course it's obvious my question was a rhetorical question, and I sure as hell know that there are people who think that faith and logic cannot be intertwined'.

Whatever.

I does seem less and less likely that I will get "it," (and it seems less and less likely that anyone can explain "it" to me in a non-cryptic manner)
But you can't be good at everything, so I will try not to let 'it' keep me up and night.
I find the "its" people can't explain are generally not worth knowing anyway. Like the "it" that makes someone believe in a (God)/(not Got). No one has really be able to explain that one to me either.

And I guess we are in agreement about the rest MM. I try to explain things in ways I hope everyone can understand, and try to get people to see that not everything is linked. That one could be religious and smart. (not that I claim to be either)

I try, and like everything else, get varying degrees of success.

You don't get it; you probably never will.

The rhetorical question asked was from me.
"there still people who believe that faith and logic are mutually exclusive and incompatible?"
Well, it was sort of obvious that there are, and that needed no answer.

So, I should have used the face when I said "yes a little" to Tri?
Well, I will keep that in mind MM.
I am trying to be a better poster, and we all know that expressing emotion in my posts is something I need to work on. Even I think they seem dry and lifeless.

And I was ASKING if it was a threat. I DO know what the "?" means. It SEEMED to me like I was being told "keep your head down, or bad things will happen." Something a mob boss would tell someone.

I am just asking for clarification, and, not surprising, none is forth coming.

Straw man, much?

Especially with twisting Sapphire Tri's words?

@MM: Rhetorica answer and irony ftw? *shrug* That's what the ''meant right?

Crap, I hate Opera. It doesn't copy the winks.

";)" is not indicative of a rhetorical answer; it's suggestive of irony and/or sarcasm, the nadir of wit apparently.

There are no such things as rhetorical answers, unless you mean an answer that is rhetorical -- one that is spoken.

A rhetorical question is one intended such that you don't answer it; the answer is clearly obvious.
It's sort of like, "[answer] :stupid:, der-uhhh, duhhhhhh".

Just a little, yes

Well, then what did you mean by "digging yourself into a deeper hole," every time I do something on the forums that makes people take notice.

Clarification would help get ride of the paranoid. (not that I expect you to care about me being paranoid, but I just thought to throw it out there)

nice way to try to turn a simple statement of mine into a threat. Paranoid much?

Tri, what's with the threat? What hole?

Are you saying I can't write blogs now?

Stop trying to get attention. Your just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

@MM: Rhetorica answer and irony ftw? *shrug* That's what the ';)'meant right?


@AL: He has not responded yet, but I would like to keep the debate off my blog and on my extendo (which is made for that kinda thing, basically)

@Soron: Rhetorical question and irony ftw.

In an effert to NOT have my blog turn into a debate, you will find my answers here:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=3243354&postcount=89

Please respond on THAT thread, TY!

I'm going to try to be polite and explain some of the things that you may have misunderstood.

1 & 2) I do have problems with both religion and ignorance even though I mainly address religion in this comment. I do also believe there is a direct correlation between ignorance and faith, which is part of religion. Faith demands that you believe something unquestionably which requires you to be ignorant to some extent depending on your religion and how true you actually are to it. Which leads me to my next point..

3) I don't have a strong belief in my rightness. As an Athiest I do not believe in any god but as a rational human being I don't believe anyone can be anyone can actually declare there is or isn't a good. All in all, I'm a rational Athiest or what I like to call an Agnostic.

This isn't to say I think it is wrong to have faith in something. I just believe it is wrong to impose your own beliefs onto ANYONE because no one actually knows. That is what faith is about: Believing.

4) I'm quite confused as to why you think I'm lumping all theists into the same group. What I basically said was that many people who are religious tend to adapt their religion to science and other things. In fact, almost all Christians have adopted science yet still have faith. There is no such thing as partial faith. As soon as someone tries to change the minutest detail about their religion their faith doesn't actually exist anymore. This person may still believe there is a god and may also at the same time believe in science, but if he or she were to call them self a member of said religion that person would be lying. This person has now adopted a personal belief system, which is the opposite of a religion. I don't think this is wrong either. I just think it is wrong to have a personal belief system and to try to pass it off as some preexisting religion.

5) Actually I was kind of making fun of you with this one. This had nothing to do with her IQ jumping or even her faith actually.

In retrospect I don't think my problem is actually with religion itself but with organized religion and people who are hypocrites about their religion; especially those who try to preach it as well.

@ Magic Mage: Yes indeed there are, read the comment right below yours

@Tarmogoyf: Yes I am wrong.... that's what I said.... And this is not 'about you.' I am writing this blog because of all the many people with your point of view that I have come across on these forums.
1)No, it's clearly not, as you say in your next point.
2) See, your linking the two together. The problem here is that you feel religion=ignorance. <- This is wrong. This is right-> religion=religion and ignorance=ignorance. Many very smart people had faith, from Newton to Einstein.
3) YOU seem to have a very strong belief in you're own rightness. I am talking about people like you(and me).
4) See, you lumping all theists into the same group again. That would be like me saying all atheist think its ok to have sex with minors because I found a video on youtube by an atheist that was saying it was ok. SOME SMALL groups of theist feel that faith and modern science can't go hand and hand. But MOST theist believe that God made the universe with a set of rules, and we are allowed to figure out those rules, which is also called science.
5) So, you believe if she gave up her faith her IQ would jump?

I do not know if your PS is a joke or not, so I do not know how to respond to it. If you would like to talk to me more please go here:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=109078&page=6