Bringing Christianity into disrepute!

[Nearly Sane]

Couldn't remember so I had a quick look on Wikki, "egotism" food poisoning, by fungus in their diet, the fungus grows in rye and other cereal crops, the symptoms among others are mania and psychosis, was the cause of those women thinking the were witches or something very much like that, can't remember the details; maybe Hope?

Can't remember where I read about it, could have been Newcastle or Aberdeen,  but I read about this somewhere some considerable amount of years ago from now.

ippy

PS sorry about the Newcastle etc but that's where my addled mind went at the time, no,not Newcastle; no not even the least bit amusing, yes I know.

ippy

Presume this is predictive text changing ergotism to egotism?

[Owlswing]

Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo.  Religious faith does.  That's quite a considerable difference.

As I have stated elsewhere, magic, as in ta witch's spells, is the effecting in the physical world of a change or action by dint of manipulation of natural forces with either the aquiescence or assistance of a deity - exactly what Christ's miracles were - ergo Christ's miracles are exactly the same "magic" as a witch's spell.

[floo]

Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo.  Religious faith does.  That's quite a considerable difference.

But if often does. If you prefer, belief in a deity is no more credible than belief in the ability of mediums to communicate with the dead!

[ippy]

Presume this is predictive text changing ergotism to egotism?

The most likely suspect will always in my case be my sad lifelong experience with spelling issues.

In my defence on this one my spell checker picked it up so I accepted it was correct and I would always place my bet on spell checker rather than on myself.

Please be more surprised when I get it right where spelling issues are concerned.

ippy

PS we all have a many and a varied amount of faults NS my efforts at spelling are atrocious, mind you I don't try to order people about, nor would it give me any particular pleasure to even try to do so, perhaps that might balance out some of the faults I have, faults that we all have, of various kinds of course.
   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Quite simple, bhs.  From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations.  With a little investigation, they don't hold water.  I will often make this clear on the thread that the non-explanation has been posted on, and then 'go quiet for a bit' for a couple of reasons. 

Firstly, having made my point about the non-explanation, I don't need to repeat that point: secondly, I have a life that may involve not using my computer for some hours, sometimes a day or two.  For instance, currently I'm trying to finish my Fundraising course assignments which have been on hold since the end of October and have tried to avoid using this and other sites between about 10am and late afternoon (at which point I tend to abandon the computer anyway in order to cook evening meal for the family).  Then there are the days I'm at the 2 charities I'm involved with, and then - as today - I help at various events and activities (I'm currently helping at a jobclub held at our church that runs once a week for 8 weeks)

As for my "pop(ping) up and repeat it elsewhere", there are those from your side of the debate who will make the same or very similar non-explanation' on a variety of threads, and I feel that it is my duty to respond to them on that thread - hence the repetition of my point that the 'explaation' doesn't hold water.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Your broken thinking at issue is your “OK, I may be guessing but scientists are too” schtick. You’ve been corrected on it more than once yet you repeat it nonetheless.

Why ?

I suppose I could, if I had the time, do the equivalent for many of the non-explanations that people love to post.  Not sure that I'd manage to get up to 5 on such a list - after all, many of the non-explanations are so similar that one rebuttal can do for several.

Again you’d have to explain what you mean by a “non-explanation” – and if you can do that, perhaps you could explain why you think it’s ok to replace a “don’t know” with a “here’s the answer then that happens to be a personal faith belief of my own”.

The point though is that you are notorious here for relying on logical fallacies, both formal and informal. As you just repeat them even after you’ve had them explained, perhaps it would be simpler to have a numbered list so that the rest of us could just post, “Hope balls up number six” or whatever. I doubt it’ll stop you doing it, but it’ll save others time at least.