Abortion & atheism vs. crusade & religion

04/19/2013 06:01:17 PM · #276

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll leave you be. Let's go back to our corners.

LOL, we can pick it up again some other time, when we haven't beaten the path down to bare stone. As I said, I'm somewhat convinced we won't ever see the other's position on this particular issue. :)

04/19/2013 06:52:59 PM · #277

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it?

...Makes me wonder why the church exerted so much effort in converting people, or could it be that the other views were not considered justifiable :O)

Ray

You realize the church believes in an objective morality where it makes perfect sense, right? I'm asking YOU why YOU would ever do such a thing...

I will assume that in this statement you are telling me that the church operates on the premise of reason, but cannot comprehend why it is that the church failed to consider that the what they embarked upon ran against the very morality that prevailed in the indigenous peoples in a variety of places...those too were based on reason.

Perfect sense ought to be a two way street... but it is only through interaction and an appreciation of others that we can hope to learn morality in a global sense.

I am getting the impression that you are suggesting that morality is the exclusive domain of religion and cannot begin to support that notion.

Ray

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/19/2013 06:55:17 PM · #278

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=DrAchoo]
...If another view is perfectly justifiable to another person, why would you ever ask someone to change it?

...Makes me wonder why the church exerted so much effort in converting people, or could it be that the other views were not considered justifiable :O)

Ray

You realize the church believes in an objective morality where it makes perfect sense, right? I'm asking YOU why YOU would ever do such a thing...

I will assume that in this statement you are telling me that the church operates on the premise of reason, but cannot comprehend why it is that the church failed to consider that the what they they dealt with some cultures ran against the very morality that prevailed in the indigenous peoples in a variety of places...those too were based on reason.

Perfect sense ought to be a two way street... but it is only through interaction and an appreciation and mutual respect of others that we can hope to learn morality in a global sense.

I am getting the impression that you are suggesting that morality is the exclusive domain of religion and cannot begin to support that notion.

I had a very tough week and perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your point in this regard... help me out here.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-04-19 18:55:57.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

04/19/2013 07:50:20 PM · #279

Ya, you are missing what I'm saying Ray.

If your worldview includes Objective morality (moral questions have real answers that one can be right or wrong about) then telling someone else they are wrong about X, Y, or Z makes rational sense. You assume you have the "right" answer and that they have the "wrong" answer and you are trying to correct the situation. (This is leaving aside who is actually right and wrong, etc). This is where the church is and this is why I said it makes "perfect sense" for them to be trying to convert people.

If your worldview includes Subjective morality (moral questions have answers that are in the eye of the beholder) then telling someone else they are wrong about X, Y, or Z doesn't make as much sense. As you put it, although you might disagree with someone you realize they have their own "perfectly justified" reasons for doing things. Trying to convert someone makes much less sense because we should realize that one moral system has no superiority over another.

This will always be the weakness of Subjective morality. A) Subjective morality has zero ability to effect change in the real world. If you disagree with someone else's justifications and you are honest with yourself you realize your own justifications do not trump the situation. This leads us to the second problem B) Nobody lives and talks in a way that is intellectually honest to Subjective morality. Nobody is telling us to leave the poor Boston bombers alone because they likely have their own "perfectly justified" reasons for killing and maiming innocent people. I've been around Rant for enough years to know that you have opinions about things and strong ones. You will tell someone else they are "wrong" about something (even if you don't necessarily use that word) and their own justification about whatever topic (guns, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc) is less "justified" than your own. That behavior is only consistent with Objective morality and has little place in a Subjective world.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/19/2013 10:06:18 PM · #280

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll leave you be. Let's go back to our corners.

LOL, we can pick it up again some other time, when we haven't beaten the path down to bare stone. As I said, I'm somewhat convinced we won't ever see the other's position on this particular issue. :)

Maybe you should have applied that scientific method thingy.. It wouldn't have taken you 567,464 posts with Jason to have come to this conclusion. Just a thought.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2013 11:37:57 PM · #281

Originally posted by Cory:

That is exactly what I desire, not some crazy pure-science only method of dealing with our decisions, but rather that they are based on something more substantial than beliefs. You can keep "going down the rabbit hole" all you'd like in terms of this conversation, but it continues to come around to this point: I do not think that we should accept anyone's beliefs as a valid basis for laws or other action that would impose upon another's life.

Cory, it's your axiomatic belief, apparently, that a world organized on pure scientific principles, based on valid, provable observations, would be a "better" world for human beings. But the thing of it is: you haven't offered any proof that this is the case. You take it "on faith" that, left unfettered, science will lead us to the light. Yet it can be shown that many, many times "scientific principles" have lead us to untenable moral positions and outright social decay on one scale or another. And it doesn't mean anything to REFUTE those cases (as some are tempted to do) by saying "Well, it turned out that this was false science, so of course it didn't work." That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Doc was bringing up, as an example, the logical extension of your absolute statement that we need to recognize that "fewer people" makes a "better world". Using the "strained resources" paradigm as an axiomatic base, I can certainly make the case for using euthanasia against the crippled, the insane, the retarded, and the sociopathic (I'm aware that these some of these words are not "acceptable" anymore) members of our society. Jonathan Swift once came up with a perfectly rational, "scientific" ("social science" in this instance) solution to poverty and starvation in the urban lower classes of his time; it's called "A Modest Proposal" and I'm sure you've read it.

In summary, you'd do very well NOT to dismiss out-of-hand Doc's attempts to point out to you that just because you BELIEVE in the superiority of the rational and scientific doesn't mean you're RIGHT, and enlarge your thinking to embrace at least some awareness that there's much to be said for yoking science to spirituality in attempting to bolster the human condition.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/19/2013 11:46:11 PM · #282

checks and balances.

both sides make sure one doesn't get too much influence in our ever evolving society, religion and non religion can coexist, provide we can keep the extremism at bay.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2013 11:52:51 PM · #283

Originally posted by Mike:

checks and balances.

both sides make sure one doesn't get too much influence in our ever evolving society, religion and non religion can coexist, provide we can keep the extremism at bay.

Not only "can", "should" and "must"...

04/20/2013 12:56:00 AM · #284

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mike:
checks and balances.

both sides make sure one doesn't get too much influence in our ever evolving society, religion and non religion can coexist, provide we can keep the extremism at bay.

Not only "can", "should" and "must"...

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Bear, you can assure me this is needed all you want, but to even attempt to constrain myself and live my life according to the rules of any one of their various organizations? I'd rather die, and that's no exaggeration.

Tell me again, why MUST I humor these silly beliefs, and how would we ever choose among their conflicting beliefs as to what is right? From your perspective, it would seem that we should honor the beliefs of Sharia law, as well as Christian law, as well as ....

Frankly, they are in conflict far too much for me to bother with any of them, and choosing any one over the other is nothing more than an arbitrary decision. Convince me it wouldn't be! How the hell does any religion manage to actually know ANYTHING they believe is right? Ask God and wait for your imagination to give you the answer you desire?

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2013 02:43:18 AM · #285

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've been around Rant for enough years to know that you have opinions about things and strong ones.

That obvious huh? :O)

Thanks for the input Doc... much appreciated.

Ray

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

04/20/2013 02:53:27 AM · #286

Originally posted by Cory:

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

04/20/2013 03:00:27 AM · #287

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends

...and yet, certain Christians had the very same perception of Native Americans and their beliefs in "Gitche Manitou".

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-04-20 03:00:37.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2013 03:10:22 AM · #288

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

I can only hope you're wrong.

Superbly pleased to have gotten this reaction from the OP though, that was an unexpected bonus, and to be clear, I said that it would seem to me that they must be insane, brain-damaged, or deceitful, but that indeed I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Your reading comprehension really does worry me, because you feel that it's your duty to live your life by your understanding of a book - but yet you were unable to fully comprehend even a rather simplistic post like mine. Sorry Johnny, but that doesn't give me confidence in your ability to fully comprehend a complex work such as the bible, fiction or not. Although, it does tend to lend credit to my brain-damage theory. ;)

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

04/20/2013 03:51:38 AM · #289

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

I can only hope you're wrong.

Superbly pleased to have gotten this reaction from the OP though, that was an unexpected bonus, and to be clear, I said that it would seem to me that they must be insane, brain-damaged, or deceitful, but that indeed I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Your reading comprehension really does worry me, because you feel that it's your duty to live your life by your understanding of a book - but yet you were unable to fully comprehend even a rather simplistic post like mine. Sorry Johnny, but that doesn't give me confidence in your ability to fully comprehend a complex work such as the bible, fiction or not. Although, it does tend to lend credit to my brain-damage theory. ;)

Thank you for embarrassing yourself. Not only is your criticism of my reading comprehension totally baseless, but your own comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. Allow me to explain: You said, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying..." Those are the exact words that you wrote. Now, my claim was that you "called them [religious people] brain damaged." You rebutted my claim by pointing to your words, "I know that's not true." Now, let's put on our thinking caps and examine the vocabulary and the logic used in our little exchange.

First, did you write the words, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged...?" Yes, in fact, you did. From a linguistic perspective is that statement equivalent to "calling religious people brain damaged?" Yes.

Second, your rebuttal is a perfect exhibition of flawed logic. Why? You defended against my accusation of calling religious people brain damaged by writing "I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE." Basically, you unsuccessfully attempted to disprove my claim of name-calling by arguing that you do not "believe" what you said is true. Sorry my friend, but name-calling and believing are completely different categories. Why don't you try going up to a police officer and say "I don't believe this to be true, but you're an [expletive]-hole," and see if he is offended. If you direct offensive statements at someone it is considered name-calling whether or not you believe it.

Thank you for providing this evening's entertainment. Much appreciated ;)

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2013 04:01:52 AM · #290

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

I can only hope you're wrong.

Superbly pleased to have gotten this reaction from the OP though, that was an unexpected bonus, and to be clear, I said that it would seem to me that they must be insane, brain-damaged, or deceitful, but that indeed I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Your reading comprehension really does worry me, because you feel that it's your duty to live your life by your understanding of a book - but yet you were unable to fully comprehend even a rather simplistic post like mine. Sorry Johnny, but that doesn't give me confidence in your ability to fully comprehend a complex work such as the bible, fiction or not. Although, it does tend to lend credit to my brain-damage theory. ;)

Thank you for embarrassing yourself. Not only is your criticism of my reading comprehension totally baseless, but your own comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. Allow me to explain: You said, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying..." Those are the exact words that you wrote. Now, my claim was that you "called them [religious people] brain damaged." You rebutted my claim by pointing to your words, "I know that's not true." Now, let's put on our thinking caps and examine the vocabulary and the logic used in our little exchange.

First, did you write the words, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged...?" Yes, in fact, you did. From a linguistic perspective is that statement equivalent to "calling religious people brain damaged?" Yes.

Second, your rebuttal is a perfect exhibition of flawed logic. Why? You defended against my accusation of calling religious people brain damaged by writing "I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE." Basically, you unsuccessfully attempted to disprove my claim of name-calling by arguing that you do not "believe" what you said is true. Sorry my friend, but name-calling and believing are completely different categories. Why don't you try going up to a police officer and say "I don't believe this to be true, but you're an [expletive]-hole," and see if he is offended. If you direct offensive statements at someone it is considered name-calling whether or not you believe it.

Thank you for providing this evening's entertainment. Much appreciated ;)

Yep. Brain damaged.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

04/20/2013 04:14:13 AM · #291

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

I can only hope you're wrong.

Superbly pleased to have gotten this reaction from the OP though, that was an unexpected bonus, and to be clear, I said that it would seem to me that they must be insane, brain-damaged, or deceitful, but that indeed I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Your reading comprehension really does worry me, because you feel that it's your duty to live your life by your understanding of a book - but yet you were unable to fully comprehend even a rather simplistic post like mine. Sorry Johnny, but that doesn't give me confidence in your ability to fully comprehend a complex work such as the bible, fiction or not. Although, it does tend to lend credit to my brain-damage theory. ;)

Thank you for embarrassing yourself. Not only is your criticism of my reading comprehension totally baseless, but your own comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. Allow me to explain: You said, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying..." Those are the exact words that you wrote. Now, my claim was that you "called them [religious people] brain damaged." You rebutted my claim by pointing to your words, "I know that's not true." Now, let's put on our thinking caps and examine the vocabulary and the logic used in our little exchange.

First, did you write the words, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged...?" Yes, in fact, you did. From a linguistic perspective is that statement equivalent to "calling religious people brain damaged?" Yes.

Second, your rebuttal is a perfect exhibition of flawed logic. Why? You defended against my accusation of calling religious people brain damaged by writing "I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE." Basically, you unsuccessfully attempted to disprove my claim of name-calling by arguing that you do not "believe" what you said is true. Sorry my friend, but name-calling and believing are completely different categories. Why don't you try going up to a police officer and say "I don't believe this to be true, but you're an [expletive]-hole," and see if he is offended. If you direct offensive statements at someone it is considered name-calling whether or not you believe it.

Thank you for providing this evening's entertainment. Much appreciated ;)

Yep. Brain damaged.

Just saying... if everyone had to believe that their offensive statements were true in order for them to qualify as "name-calling" then we could just go around calling people names all the time as long as we followed up with the disclaimer, "but I know that's not true," and nobody would be offended. Sorry, but that doesn't work. It's akin to a bully telling his teacher, "but I didn't mean it," while the victimized student sits in the corner crying.

But please, continue your name-calling. It really does add much more credibility to your arguments.

04/20/2013 04:52:34 AM · #292

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Cory:

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. You sincerely compared religious people to schoolchildren who believe in invisible friends, and you even went a step further and called them brain damaged... Unbelievable, and outrageously offensive.

Sorry to burst your narrow-minded fantasy world bubble, but religion will be around for more than 200 years. It's been around for thousands of years already and with billions of religious people alive in the world today, it's likely to be around for many thousands of years to come.

I can only hope you're wrong.

Superbly pleased to have gotten this reaction from the OP though, that was an unexpected bonus, and to be clear, I said that it would seem to me that they must be insane, brain-damaged, or deceitful, but that indeed I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Your reading comprehension really does worry me, because you feel that it's your duty to live your life by your understanding of a book - but yet you were unable to fully comprehend even a rather simplistic post like mine. Sorry Johnny, but that doesn't give me confidence in your ability to fully comprehend a complex work such as the bible, fiction or not. Although, it does tend to lend credit to my brain-damage theory. ;)

Thank you for embarrassing yourself. Not only is your criticism of my reading comprehension totally baseless, but your own comprehension ability leaves much to be desired. Allow me to explain: You said, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying..." Those are the exact words that you wrote. Now, my claim was that you "called them [religious people] brain damaged." You rebutted my claim by pointing to your words, "I know that's not true." Now, let's put on our thinking caps and examine the vocabulary and the logic used in our little exchange.

First, did you write the words, "everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged...?" Yes, in fact, you did. From a linguistic perspective is that statement equivalent to "calling religious people brain damaged?" Yes.

Second, your rebuttal is a perfect exhibition of flawed logic. Why? You defended against my accusation of calling religious people brain damaged by writing "I KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE." Basically, you unsuccessfully attempted to disprove my claim of name-calling by arguing that you do not "believe" what you said is true. Sorry my friend, but name-calling and believing are completely different categories. Why don't you try going up to a police officer and say "I don't believe this to be true, but you're an [expletive]-hole," and see if he is offended. If you direct offensive statements at someone it is considered name-calling whether or not you believe it.

Thank you for providing this evening's entertainment. Much appreciated ;)

Yep. Brain damaged.

Just saying... if everyone had to believe that their offensive statements were true in order for them to qualify as "name-calling" then we could just go around calling people names all the time as long as we followed up with the disclaimer, "but I know that's not true," and nobody would be offended. Sorry, but that doesn't work. It's akin to a bully telling his teacher, "but I didn't mean it," while the victimized student sits in the corner crying.

But please, continue your name-calling. It really does add much more credibility to your arguments.

Seriously, you're welcome to interpret what I wrote however you want to do so.

I wrote it in a very clear manner, in which you have pedantically found a way to attempt to take it out of context and kvetch about it, or sit in the corner and cry, or whatever you're up to over there.

Let me be clear, now you're just walking down the road of dumbass, but walk on brother, and I'll be here, kicking you in the nuts the whole way. Besides, I actually can go around calling anyone whatever names I would please, I don't even have to qualify it with some weak-ass rejoinder of apology negating the comment. Believe me, I don't have a problem saying EXACTLY what I mean, and once you qualify for being told off, it'll be my pleasure to do so.

Let's just remember who started this conversation, and what supreme dumbassery you've displayed there as well. Johnny boy, you sir are a right and proper brain damaged dumbass, and it scares me that your understanding of the world revolves around your (likely incomplete and incorrect) comprehension of a 2000 year old book.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/20/2013 08:47:09 AM · #293

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mike:
checks and balances.

both sides make sure one doesn't get too much influence in our ever evolving society, religion and non religion can coexist, provide we can keep the extremism at bay.

Not only "can", "should" and "must"...

Sorry, but I never could understand the kids who had imaginary friends, I thought they were either silly or stupid - and I can't say much different for the believers. This isn't reality, god isn't real, and you're simply playing adult make-believe on a grand scale because it makes you feel good, safe, secure, and as though someone somewhere actually cares about you.
Sorry, but I just can't support that, no way I'm ever going to. It might feel nice, and serve some purpose that you can't fulfill with something else, but to me it all seems like I'm watching school children tell me how awesome their invisible buddy is, and how I should be his friend, and about all the awesome stuff their invisible friend does. It's ridiculous, I can't even pretend to nod politely after some period of time. It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by.

Bear, you can assure me this is needed all you want, but to even attempt to constrain myself and live my life according to the rules of any one of their various organizations? I'd rather die, and that's no exaggeration.

Tell me again, why MUST I humor these silly beliefs, and how would we ever choose among their conflicting beliefs as to what is right? From your perspective, it would seem that we should honor the beliefs of Sharia law, as well as Christian law, as well as ....

Frankly, they are in conflict far too much for me to bother with any of them, and choosing any one over the other is nothing more than an arbitrary decision. Convince me it wouldn't be! How the hell does any religion manage to actually know ANYTHING they believe is right? Ask God and wait for your imagination to give you the answer you desire?

religion isn't to know you are right its to believe without proof, its called having faith, it contradicts science and logic, its supposed to.

Cory, here is the point. you don't have to believe, you can think people are stupid for believing you can think they are insane, brain damaged, whatever. the truth is they do believe and those beliefs influence their lives.

now here's the kicker, you share the planet with them.

you know you are right, they know they are right, so who is right? it doesn't matter. lets all find a way to coexist so that one belief doesn't unfairly influence another. and let try not to kill each other along the way.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/20/2013 09:27:28 AM · #294

Cory, you laid your own minefield here, you may's well own it.

You know as well as the rest of us do that you can't get a lot of mileage out of insulting someone gratuitously then taking a "just kidding" tag on the end of it, in real life. Right? Don't ya hate people that do that? Don't ya just KNOW that deep down they're expressing a belief/opinion/feeling and then refusing to own it?

That's what you just did.

Message edited by author 2013-04-20 10:17:26.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/20/2013 11:51:19 AM · #295

Originally posted by Bear Music:

... there's much to be said for yoking science to spirituality in attempting to bolster the human condition.

This is the wisest thing I've seen on Rant in a year.

04/20/2013 12:20:22 PM · #296

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear Music:
... there's much to be said for yoking science to spirituality in attempting to bolster the human condition.

This is the wisest thing I've seen on Rant in a year.

It most certainly is... but could it not be argued that one can be spiritual without belonging to a specific religion.

Just asking,

Ray

04/20/2013 12:50:21 PM · #297

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I own it - but I never said "just kidding" at the end of it.

What I did say was:

"It seems to me that this must be so clear that everyone who claims that they believe in God either must be insane, brain-damaged, or is simply lying about it for their own gain or comfort. Of course I know that's not true, but I really wish sometimes I was born 200 years into the future when all this stone-age mysticism and sky-god worship has passed us by. "

It SEEMS to me that this MUST be so clear .. Of COURSE I KNOW that's NOT true...

My entire point was that this IS bullshit fantasy land, I don't really think believers are brain-damaged as I know quite a few intelligent people who are believers, but it seems that all of them have this blind spot where religion is concerned, as if it isn't subject to the requirements and rules that the rest of their life is, as though it's somehow above such mundane restrictions. What I do think is that the whole thing is a fantasy that acts like a powerful opiate upon the human mind. I also HOPE that we won't be subject to it for more than another century, and hopefully withing two centuries we'll have freed ourselves entirely of these parasitic belief systems.

Message edited by author 2013-04-20 12:50:33.

04/20/2013 01:01:19 PM · #298

Originally posted by Mike:

I'm just not ok with anything that contradicts science and logic. Not ok at all, it's not acceptable to me as logic is effectively the tool we use to reason, and once you're willing to shut of your ability to reason so that you can accept whatever you're told, that's a dangerous dangerous dangerous thing.

We agree on the point that we can both think what we wish, and that these beliefs influence people's lives. And that's why sharing a planet with them does worry me. You should be worried too, since not all religious people are anywhere near as moderate as the good Doc. Hell, I have NO doubt there are Christians and Muslims alike who'd find justifying killing me pretty easy to do, given my views.

I don't know that I'm right, not in the least - frankly, I'm sure I've got some of this wrong, perhaps spectacularly - but I have yet to hear a valid justification for humans throwing away the only tools they have to sort the bullshit from the valid information, once you attempt to justify the suspension of critical thought then I am fairly well convinced that you have entered the realm of irrationality.

Message edited by author 2013-04-20 13:01:47.

Mike