Yes, Virginia There is a Hell -- Jesus Said So

Dishonesty at its finest. See points of interest below.

My beliefs or the beliefs of Junobet dictate that we talk about God and Jesus throughout the whole world, which would include those environments where you are located. When we do abide by those beliefs, those beliefs affect you and your observations to such a degree that you start protesting on forums such as this one, about the intrusion by Christians into your life; about how the Christians are shoving their beliefs down your throat; etc. So, our beliefs do affect your observations.

Notice your own use of the word "sum",,, meaning the total extent of what is present. As explained above, our beliefs do affect your observations when we are a part of that sum. Even at this very moment, while you are 'observing' /reading this message, your observation is affected and your thoughts are affected. Even at the mention of the name of "God" or Jesus, your thoughts are affected because they are a part of that 'sum'.

Your lack of belief is betrayed and overwhelmed. Betrayed by the fact that you respond in a negative manner to such displays of our beliefs as preaching on street corners and the potential influence on legislators; Overwhelmed by the fact that your lack of belief cannot subdue our exercise of our belief.

 

It seems you either don't remember or haven't taken notice when I've said that I live in a place where religiosity isn't really an issue. Christians are not shoving their beliefs down our throats here in Denmark. On the contrary, they're usually rather silent.

Not that this has anything to do with the issue, though. I do not share your or Junobets beliefs and therefore they do not affect my observations.

Unless, of course, the observations are actually and specifically of either of your beliefs. Then I may comment on such observations "on forums such as this one".

Well, I *am* specifically observing what appears to be your beliefs right now (see above).

I only wish for critical thinking to be exercised so unless you're of the opinion that exercising your beliefs subdues critical thinking then there's no way that I would want to subdue any exercise of your beliefs.

 

In the technical sense of the word, I suppose that you could say that the beliefs of me and Junobet might not affect your observations, because we are not in Denmark, however our postings are arriving at your location there in Denmark, and therefore, those beliefs of ours do affect you observations (the observations of your computer screen) and therefore do affect your thoughts. Otherwise, you would not be responding to my former posting. BTW: There are again, several meanings to the word "share". One of those definitions would include the fact of your indulging our postings.... subsequently, under that definition, you are sharing our beliefs.

As stated above, then you are sharing those beliefs.

Gee... you seem to catch on fast.

As stated previously... your little antics on this forum do not in any way 'subdue' my beliefs or the exercise of those beliefs. But thanks anyway for the 'sharing' opportunity.

 

You trying to share your beliefs has nothing to do with others sharing them, Incorporeal.

As stated previously... I have no intention whatsoever to subdue any exercise of your beliefs. If you feel I do, however, then it could very well be due to a clash between your exercise of beliefs and my exercise of rational thinking. I can say this because I feel the same effect; your exercise of your beliefs is invariably close to resemble a desire to subdue rational thought.

 

On the contrary. You do participate in that sharing. Simply look at the definitions of "share":

"share 1 (shâr)
n.
1. A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
2. An equitable portion.
3. Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided.
v. shared, shar·ing, shares
v.tr.
1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others.
v.intr.
1. To have a share or part.
2. To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses.
3. To use or enjoy something jointly or in turns"

You participate in the sharing, by discussing my beliefs, you use my beliefs in some of your quotations of the things I have stated; portions of my beliefs have been shared with you. You are sharing, you just don't realize that you are sharing.

'Feeling' is an observation. Therefore your observations (through feeling) are affected by my beliefs.

 

Since the mind is apparently insufficient to grasp this concept, try share your money with me and then you can use your eyes to see how it works.

By the way, your word games have no effect, Incorporeal. Never did.

 

Are you suggesting that your mind is ignorant of the English language and the use of definitions? As for the 'money' aspect. You need to take that part of the discussion on over to the government or strict political portion of the PF. You will also probably find some really radical views pertaining to 'money' in that section.

So now you attempt to refer to the use of the dictionary as a "game"... WOW! You should learn to play that game. Oh, but you can't, because above you suggest that your mind cannot grasp that concept.

 

Of course something that is not part of the sum of your experiences and cultural backround is going to affect your observations.

To explain again:

While being differing individuals you and me are likely to observe things in a rather similar way, because we're both from a European judaeo-christian cultural backround of the 21 century.
Somebody from a Balinese cultural backround is likely to observe things in a rather different way because he doesn't come from that cultural backround. He'll miss out on spontaneous associations we draw and we'll miss out on spontaneous associations he might draw etc.

You're assuming that a belief is an influence in which you are right and you're assuming that you can be completely lacking in beliefs in which you are certainly wrong.
And if we leave the lofty philosophical level here and come back to the original down to earth question:

No, belief in God does not necessarily keep you from being an excellent scientist observing things in a scientific way. Someone who believes that the origin of all things is in God and can observe these things and how they work just like somebody who is an atheist. If you refute that, I must come to the conclusion that your strong belief in atheism affects your judgement.
But I guess we'd both agree that it would be rather silly to say that Newton for example must have been a rubbish scientist because he was highly religious, wouldn't we?

I wish I could share your optimism.

Mmmh, from our discussion I'm under the impression that I'm much stricter than you are in that question, because I'm saying that objective truth is inaccessible. We can only perceive the world through the cloud of the discourses, religious and otherwise, that formed us. And I didn't get these ideas from the bible or my pastor, but from Foucault.