293 replies to this topic

[mklsgl]

socrates.junior, on 15 June 2010 - 05:20 PM, said:

Hmm, his point couldn't be found in the title, could it?

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.

Quote

What's wrong with letting people be who they are without [judgment] and ridicule?

Shoudn't the pastor abide these words?

[socrates.junior]

Quote

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.

And what you're saying is different how? I know you're using slightly better vocabulary, but that doesn't mean you're right and he's wrong. In fact, based on the fact that 90% of the people responding to this (or more) are atheist/agnostic/against religion...it basically proves his point.

[Michelle]

mklsgl, on 15 June 2010 - 06:53 PM, said:

His title, and the entire opinion he put forth, is nothing more than a sophomoric rant. His attempt at forming something akin to an argument (as in Argumentation) fails miserably.


Shoudn't the pastor abide these words?

Most certainly...I think everyone should. Who is going to start that trend? Tit for tat doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[mklsgl]

socrates.junior, on 15 June 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:

And what you're saying is different how? I know you're using slightly better vocabulary, but that doesn't mean you're right and he's wrong. In fact, based on the fact that 90% of the people responding to this (or more) are atheist/agnostic/against religion...it basically proves his point.

This is not about me, s.jr.; indeed, it is only about his opinion. Can we agree on that?

Proves his point? In fact? Basically? C'mon, s.jr., the lack of support in this thread evidences nothing but a lack of support in this thread.

Where in his opinion do you find the two most vital elements of an intellectual argument: ethos and logos? His column is pure pathos--a tool of persuasion, not argumentation.

[mklsgl]

Michelle, on 15 June 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

Most certainly...I think everyone should. Who is going to start that trend? Tit for tat doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Red: I nominate you!

Black: Absolutely. It only furthers deeper entrenchment. It does not promote the free-flowing exchange of ideas.

[Tiggs]

socrates.junior, on 15 June 2010 - 05:24 PM, said:

It is a little self-serving, I'll admit. But there is much less difference of opinions and ideas that the group in question has, as opposed to the many differences which religion has as a whole.

I'm pretty sure that theists believe in a God and Atheists don't. As such, whilst Theists can differ with regard in how they perceive the aspects of their given God, there's not really so much that atheists can disagree on when it comes to an absent God.

[Michelle]

mklsgl, on 15 June 2010 - 08:03 PM, said:

Red: I nominate you!

Black: Absolutely. It only furthers deeper entrenchment. It does not promote the free-flowing exchange of ideas.

  Thank you...I accept this nomination and will adhere to it to the best of my ability.

[MARAB0D]

Quote

a sophomoric rant

Thats the correct word!

[churchanddestroy]

Emma_Acid, on 14 June 2010 - 07:35 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be grandiose, but I don't think anyone considers unicorns a threat to the future of civilisation.

No of course not.

I go to a small, private Lutheran College. Of course I am not a Lutheran, nor am I really anything as I don't believe in anything. However, on several occasions I've had non-Christian students here complain about the fact that this school is a Lutheran school, which always boggles my mind. For one, they chose to go here, and second, this school is nothing, NOTHING compared to Catholic school. I suppose that was my point in posting that image - that if you don't believe in something you shouldn't get your panties all up in a bunch about it. Sans of course things that affect society as a whole, like teaching creationism in schools. But I think that goes without saying.

[Halfwolf]

Most of the arguements against Religion here are based on the OT, which is not meant to be taken literally (according to some Rabbi's aand Catholic Priests I've talked to).
   If the world does collapse and there are only 2 camps left 1. atheists  and 2. Believers. I will go with the believers.

[Emma_Acid]

churchanddestroy, on 16 June 2010 - 12:03 AM, said:

I suppose that was my point in posting that image - that if you don't believe in something you shouldn't get your panties all up in a bunch about it.

I respectfully disagree.

There are a host of issues in our society that are accepted as normal practice, yet objectively make little or no sense, and when viewed in the wider context are damaging, even dangerous.

The effect of Western nutritionism on AIDS treatment in South Africa is another conversation for another time, but illustrates my point that these things aren't benign and sometimes people shouldn't be let alone to believe what they what.

Basing a society in faith and superstition will always lead to Bad Things. Lets say one person believes that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by a pact with the devil. Fine. But what if 10 people believe that? 100? 10 million? How will that society function? How will that society view natural disasters, and how would it approach science?

Its all very funny hearing an Iranian cleric claim that scantily dressed women cause earthquakes, but it would be less funny of they were American or British, and not at all funny if it were the general consensus.

These things cannot be shrouded in taboo. Religion and its effects on progress, science and society must be addressed and debated properly, not swept under the carpet with a "let them believe what they want".

Edited by Emma_Acid, 16 June 2010 - 09:38 AM.

[Emma_Acid]

Halfwolf, on 16 June 2010 - 08:24 AM, said:

If the world does collapse and there are only 2 camps left 1. atheists  and 2. Believers. I will go with the believers.

How embarrassingly selfish. Be my guest anyway, although I'm not sure how wailing at effigies, bending in front of crosses, apologising for all the bad things your species has ever done while throwing stones at the heathens will ever get society back on its feet again.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 16 June 2010 - 09:36 AM.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I don't know how believing we're all an accidental cancer on a lonely planet that no one cares about, life has no ultimate meaning, we're all just space-dust in an uncaring universe, etc. is good for society either.

My point is, neither religion nor irreligion are cancers about to destroy civilization, so you might want to tone down your generalizations and hyperbole.

Edited by Pseudo Intellectual, 16 June 2010 - 10:06 AM.

[Emma_Acid]

Pseudo Intellectual, on 16 June 2010 - 10:02 AM, said:

I don't know how believing we're all an accidental cancer on a lonely planet that no one cares about, life has no ultimate meaning, we're all just space-dust in an uncaring universe, etc. is good for society either.

My point is, neither religion nor irreligion are cancers about to destroy civilization, so you might want to tone down your generalizations and hyperbole.

Those aren't the only two options you know, and I wasn't making a case for enlightenment - I was explaining why we should just "let people believe what they want to believe".

This is unimaginably important - Hitchens, who knows more than you, I or anyone else here on the subject - solidly believes theocracy will end civilisation. I try to state why I believe faith shouldn't be shrouded in taboo, and get told to "turn down the hyperbole". Unbelievable.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 16 June 2010 - 10:32 AM.

[Tiggs]

Emma_Acid, on 16 June 2010 - 10:31 AM, said:

This is unimaginably important - Hitchens, who knows more than you, I or anyone else here on the subject - solidly believes theocracy will end civilisation. I try to state why I believe faith shouldn't be shrouded in taboo, and get told to "turn down the hyperbole". Unbelievable.

I totally agree with Hitchen's on that particular point.

You only have to look at the Middle East to know that.