| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2012 03:19:23 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Cory:
Why don't you folks take a page from Westboro's playbook and try picketing instead of praying? I'm sure a world-wide display of 2.1 billion Christians picketing Westboro and demanding that the US government does something about it would get results inside of a week. |
Supreme Court: 'hurtful speech' of Westboro Baptist Church is protected |
And I think 2.1 billion Christians could probably find some other way to go at them. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:24:34 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by Cory:
You've got to be kidding? You're dismissing his observations because he's not reading your internal newsletters? |
Your a scientist, right? You understand observational bias? It was a very fair point.
You are starting to sound shrill again. You seem to use more words like "crappy" when you get more worked up. Just an observation. Nobody else is yelling here.
How about we just ask for a list of religious or non-religious groups that support Westboro? Let's work with that list. (This is funny, but even the KKK has condemned Westboro).
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 15:26:14. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:25:30 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Cory:
Why don't you folks take a page from Westboro's playbook and try picketing instead of praying? I'm sure a world-wide display of 2.1 billion Christians picketing Westboro and demanding that the US government does something about it would get results inside of a week. |
Supreme Court: 'hurtful speech' of Westboro Baptist Church is protected |
As would be Christians picketing Westboro ... |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:45:03 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
You've got to be kidding? You're dismissing his observations because he's not reading your internal newsletters? |
Your a scientist, right? You understand observational bias? It was a very fair point.
You are starting to sound shrill again. You seem to use more words like "crappy" when you get more worked up. Just an observation. Nobody else is yelling here.
How about we just ask for a list of religious or non-religious groups that support Westboro? Let's work with that list. (This is funny, but even the KKK has condemned Westboro). |
I like how you responded to this, but not the other post where I directly challenged you for not responding to my post in a thorough manner.
I would answer the questions you posed, as I do have a good response, but I'm gonna take a page from you playbook and just fail to advance this discussion around the points you have legitimately raised, so that you can share in my frustration. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:48:07 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
You've got to be kidding? You're dismissing his observations because he's not reading your internal newsletters? |
Your a scientist, right? You understand observational bias? It was a very fair point. |
Isn't one of the main goals of religion to get people to read their materials? Those Bible guys that come by knocking on my door just want to read/talk about the Bible. Now Doc wants Cory to read this stuff too. Quick! Slam the door, Corey!
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:48:42 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about we just ask for a list of religious or non-religious groups that support Westboro? Let's work with that list. (This is funny, but even the KKK has condemned Westboro). |
I can't help but respond to this point - since you have CLEARLY failed to read the quote a dozen times by now, let me post it again, so that it might sink in:
"When good men do nothing, evil triumphs"
Seeing that this may need explaining, given your continued failure to understand the concept, I will attempt to give a more complete explanation:
If you do not vehemently oppose them, and fight against them, then you are supporting them. You are a part of the solution, or a part of the problem, and since you share a common group membership (by choice, you can stop calling yourself Christian today if you want), then you have an even greater responsibility to act.
That's pretty simple, and seems to be logically solid. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:50:15 PM · #257 |
What ever happened to  SCalvertin these debates? Did Doc wear him down?
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:51:39 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What ever happened to SCalvertin these debates? Did Doc wear him down? |
Probably, it's very wearing to debate with someone who doesn't even try to follow the rules. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:56:04 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I can't help but respond to this point - since you have CLEARLY failed to read the quote a dozen times by now, let me post it again, so that it might sink in:
"When good men do nothing, evil triumphs"
Seeing that this may need explaining, given your continued failure to understand the concept, I will attempt to give a more complete explanation:
If you do not vehemently oppose them, and fight against them, then you are supporting them. You are a part of the solution, or a part of the problem, and since you share a common group membership (by choice, you can stop calling yourself Christian today if you want), then you have an even greater responsibility to act.
That's pretty simple, and seems to be logically solid. |
So, by this extension if a group of scientists is not vehemently opposed to Wakefield and his work, then they are supporting them? Do we need to come up with a list of scientific organizations that have said nothing about Wakefield? You see the silliness of this position? I still find you hoist with your own petard.
Originally posted by Cory:
I would answer the questions you posed, as I do have a good response, but I'm gonna take a page from you playbook and just fail to advance this discussion around the points you have legitimately raised, so that you can share in my frustration. |
That's ok. I'm not frustrated about it.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 15:57:53. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 04:32:52 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What ever happened to SCalvertin these debates? Did Doc wear him down? |
His utility company estimates 11 days to complete repairs in the region. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 04:51:12 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...If you do not vehemently oppose them, and fight against them, then you are supporting them. You are a part of the solution, or a part of the problem...
That's pretty simple, and seems to be logically solid. |
No, it's NOT logically sound. It's one of a specific class of logical fallacy called a "false dichotomy" and it doesn't hold water at all. It's actually a common fallacy among children in particular, because they tend to see the world entirely in black-and-white terms. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 05:24:59 PM · #262 |
Oh...I just love these "pimp my agenda" threads...but I'm wondering when is the price of admission worth the show?
::daintily nibbles on popcorn:: |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 05:57:52 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What ever happened to SCalvertin these debates? Did Doc wear him down? |
His utility company estimates 11 days to complete repairs in the region. |
Uh oh, Doc will have us all converted by then.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 06:29:36 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What ever happened to SCalvertin these debates? Did Doc wear him down? |
His utility company estimates 11 days to complete repairs in the region. |
Uh oh, Doc will have us all converted by then. |
Lookin' at your Avatar I ain't touchin' you with a 10-foot pole! ;) |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 07:42:25 PM · #265 |
I would like to ask a friendly question to those actively participating in this thread.
Is the main intent of this ongoing discussion just to enjoy a good rollicking debate because one thinks it is fun? Or is the main intent to change the opposing side's opinions and beliefs and educate one another?
I am genuinely interested in knowing what the desired outcome is... if there is one.
:-) |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 07:47:51 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
I would like to ask a friendly question to those actively participating in this thread.
Is the main intent of this ongoing discussion just to enjoy a good rollicking debate because one thinks it is fun? Or is the main intent to change the opposing side's opinions and beliefs and educate one another?
I am genuinely interested in knowing what the desired outcome is... if there is one.
:-) |
Honestly, my intent is to both enjoy a good debate (which doesn't often happen), and since I know that I'll never convince the hard-line Christians who participate in these debates of much in the way of my view points, the real people who I am attempting to convince are the readers, like yourself, who just read the stuff, and don't get involved.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 19:48:21. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 07:37:08 AM · #267 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, my intent is to both enjoy a good debate (which doesn't often happen), and since I know that I'll never convince the hard-line Christians who participate in these debates of much in the way of my view points, the real people who I am attempting to convince are the readers, like yourself, who just read the stuff, and don't get involved. |
The problem with religious debates is that people want to tell you what they believe and don't want to hear what you believe. I think people don't want to hear that they are wrong especially about something they are so devout.
I don't care to tell anyone else they are wrong, in fact i admire such devoutness. I am a flawed human as are all of you, no one here can say with 100% certainty that there is or is not a God. We can only make own our decision based on what we see and how we feel. I currently dont beleive in a God however I reserve the right to change my opinion if evidence is presented to me that suggests God exists.
It not right when policies are made that affect my or the life of others based on a belief system i don't or they don't subscribe to. There may or may not be a God so we cant be forbidding people to practice sexuality that goes against the word of a God that may or may not exist. If you want to forbid gay marriage, fine, but come up with a reason that it has consequences that are detrimental to us a society. There aren't many if any, people are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and they are afraid so they fall back on "God says its wrong" thats weak.
We evolve, we look back in the past and find what worked and what didn't and we modify our system accordingly, we create our rights from wrongs.
To the believers: remember you don't just serve God, he serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without believers, he doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:39:25 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, my intent is to both enjoy a good debate (which doesn't often happen), and since I know that I'll never convince the hard-line Christians who participate in these debates of much in the way of my view points, the real people who I am attempting to convince are the readers, like yourself, who just read the stuff, and don't get involved. |
The problem with religious debates is that people want to tell you what they believe and don't want to hear what you believe. I think people don't want to hear that they are wrong especially about something they are so devout.
I don't care to tell anyone else they are wrong, in fact i admire such devoutness. I am a flawed human as are all of you, no one here can say with 100% certainty that there is or is not a God. We can only make own our decision based on what we see and how we feel. I currently dont beleive in a God however I reserve the right to change my opinion if evidence is presented to me that suggests God exists.
It not right when policies are made that affect my or the life of others based on a belief system i don't or they don't subscribe to. There may or may not be a God so we cant be forbidding people to practice sexuality that goes against the word of a God that may or may not exist. If you want to forbid gay marriage, fine, but come up with a reason that it has consequences that are detrimental to us a society. There aren't many if any, people are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and they are afraid so they fall back on "God says its wrong" thats weak.
We evolve, we look back in the past and find what worked and what didn't and we modify our system accordingly, we create our rights from wrongs.
To the believers: remember you don't just serve God, he serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without believers, he doesn't exist. |
You forgot to add:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist...
It doesn't take a religious person to place a personal belief or gut feeling in place of empirical proof. We all do this to some degree or another. Until the day we all realize this we'll never be more than "personal religion" pushers in these so called debates. Truth is a bystander.
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 12:41:33. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:40:13 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, my intent is to both enjoy a good debate (which doesn't often happen), and since I know that I'll never convince the hard-line Christians who participate in these debates of much in the way of my view points, the real people who I am attempting to convince are the readers, like yourself, who just read the stuff, and don't get involved. |
Originally posted by mike_311:
The problem with religious debates is that people want to tell you what they believe and don't want to hear what you believe. I think people don't want to hear that they are wrong especially about something they are so devout. |
And in some cases, there's this attitude of enlightenment, and superiority as if they have the only right answer. that's what kind of galls me. I've never gotten a reasonable answer to the question that basically asks, "How do you know you're right?" Or they take that question, asked genuinely, as an affront. I have faith, but I have issue with most religions because for the most part, they claim to have the only right answer, and all the rest of us are.......doomed.It doesn't make sense......you have to take it on faith, and if you're reasonable, you know that if you take something on faith, it is not, and never will be, a sure thing.
I reserve the right to have my own screwball opinions about faith......but I know my opinions certainly wouldn't work for everybody. Why can't people of faith see that their opinions look just as off base to others as others' faiths do to them?
And who's right?
Knowing that you cannot know for sure should make others' ideas not only safe, but wouldn't you think that we'd all be interested in knowing what gives another person peace and solace in their faith?
Originally posted by mike_311:
I don't care to tell anyone else they are wrong, in fact i admire such devoutness. I am a flawed human as are all of you, no one here can say with 100% certainty that there is or is not a God. We can only make own our decision based on what we see and how we feel. I currently dont beleive in a God however I reserve the right to change my opinion if evidence is presented to me that suggests God exists. |
I admire the confidence, peace, solace, and many other attributes that one's religion can bring, but not the sureness that their way is the only way. That's so incredibly arrogant and close-minded. You may feel that way, but since you cannot know that, keep perspective.
Originally posted by mike_311:
It not right when policies are made that affect my or the life of others based on a belief system i don't or they don't subscribe to. There may or may not be a God so we cant be forbidding people to practice sexuality that goes against the word of a God that may or may not exist. If you want to forbid gay marriage, fine, but come up with a reason that it has consequences that are detrimental to us a society. There aren't many if any, people are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and they are afraid so they fall back on "God says its wrong" thats weak. |
That has to be one of the most invasive situations today. Hey, if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex! Duh! But until anyone offers a plausible explanation as to how two people getting married affects the people across the street, outside of parking issues, it's just rude to try to pass of your beliefs to govern their lives.
Personally, I find the indignation we're seeing of late to be an outright hoot.
"Those darn gays are making too much of a fuss.....can't they protest quietly, perhaps in another town?"
Hello???? How about if the coin was really flipped over? Arrested and jailed for practicing Christianity, public stonings, or.......hey! Let's burn a few at the stake!
And people talk about Westboro being over the edge? Hello????
Originally posted by mike_311:
We evolve, we look back in the past and find what worked and what didn't and we modify our system accordingly, we create our rights from wrongs. |
Sometimes......hopefully, and fortunately, we do seem to progress.
Originally posted by mike_311:
To the believers: remember you don't just serve God, he serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without believers, he doesn't exist. |
Ooh......you're gonna ruffle a feather or two with that blasphemous statement!
Get the tar and feathers, boys!
It would be so nice if there were laws that would state that everyone has the right to worship their own way, but nobody has the right to impose their beliefs on others.
Maybe......that'd just be courteous.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:46:04 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by yanko:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist... |
I'm fairly certain if I'm standing there talking to you, I can accept your premise that you exist.
Just don't ask me to believe that someone who isn't there exists unequivocally with no proof whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:47:35 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by yanko:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist... |
I'm fairly certain if I'm standing there talking to you, I can accept your premise that you exist.
Just don't ask me to believe that someone who isn't there exists unequivocally with no proof whatsoever. |
I took a photo of you during the NY GTG. Although the jury is still out on whether you exist. :P
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 12:47:54. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 12:54:39 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by yanko:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist... |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm fairly certain if I'm standing there talking to you, I can accept your premise that you exist.
Just don't ask me to believe that someone who isn't there exists unequivocally with no proof whatsoever. |
Originally posted by yanko:
I took a photo of you during the NY GTG. Although the jury is still out on whether you exist. :P |
Yes.......but you din't get a shot of me with my magical spaghetti wings unfurled!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2012 01:59:36 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by yanko:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist... |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm fairly certain if I'm standing there talking to you, I can accept your premise that you exist.
Just don't ask me to believe that someone who isn't there exists unequivocally with no proof whatsoever. |
Originally posted by yanko:
I took a photo of you during the NY GTG. Although the jury is still out on whether you exist. :P |
Yes.......but you din't get a shot of me with my magical spaghetti wings unfurled! |
PASTAFARIANS UNTIE! ;) lol. |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 02:01:49 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by yanko:
To non-believers: remember you don't just serve yourself, yourself serves you too. Its a mutually beneficial relationship, because without self-believers, the self doesn't exist... |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm fairly certain if I'm standing there talking to you, I can accept your premise that you exist.
Just don't ask me to believe that someone who isn't there exists unequivocally with no proof whatsoever. |
Originally posted by yanko:
I took a photo of you during the NY GTG. Although the jury is still out on whether you exist. :P |
Yes.......but you din't get a shot of me with my magical spaghetti wings unfurled! |
I got a shot of you eating imaginary food! ;D |
|
|
|
11/01/2012 02:15:31 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I got a shot of you eating imaginary food! ;D |
Would be perfect to enter in the upcoming challenge ... ;-)
Message edited by author 2012-11-01 14:15:45. |
|
