There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary notation, and those who don’t.
Seriously, I want to propose a point of view here, which may have a lot of relevance to what’s going on in this thread.
The world can indeed be grouped into two sets of people: those who are convinced their way, opinion, lifestyle, etc., are the right thing for everyone else; and those who are convinced that what is right for them may not necessarily be the right thing for someone else.
This classification transcends liberal vs. conservative, believer vs. atheist, and any of the other divisions into which we throw ourselves. The True Believer and the Evangelical Atheist share a common goal of insisting that any reasonable person must agree with them on issues of religion, despite the fact that their conclusions are at 180º variance with each other. The Mr Moto conservative and the typical liberal member here are able to discourse reasonably, because neither believes that his side has a monopoly on moral behavior.
Everyone has the right to his or her informed opinion, i.e., one based on facts, and his or her interpretation and understanding of those facts. Scott is no exception to that rule. But he must apply rational processes to the facts, not merely assert his opinions. Tom~'s point is, in a nutshell, that Scott has not been doing so. It is not that one must agree with Tom~'s conclusions, but that one must argue using common standards of logic that exclude the logical fallacies, that one must concur in something like a common basis for factuality, etc. Scott is perfectly entitled to advance atheistic perceptions to his heart’s content, but he must do so using principles of logic, not fallacious arguments that even a Young-Earth Creationist would see are fallacious, nor a “nyah-nyah-boo-boo” school of insisting on his own rightness.
Hah! There are 1, 0 kinds of people in this world. I think I get it.
I think I see what you are saying. Polycarp. I have not in fact been using logical arguments, but inductive reasoning. Now, the problem is that inductive reasoning is not designed to be logical or even designed at all. However, every single incident I have ever seen in my life has led me to the conclusion that religion is a harmful thing. However, since the majority of arguments here are based on logically proven facts, such a posting style will not get me anywhere. Unfortunately for Tom, his posting style will not get me any more convinced of his side either. He can point to economic circumstances all he likes, and show how one thing follows another, but that does delve into actual, personal reasons for the actions of people who make history. Neither side is going to be convinced anytime soon.
That being said, I want to address Tom’s critique of my posting style. First however, I need to address a problem I see with his. In my post here Tom has critiqued my posting style again and again. I have mistaken his dismissal of my arguments as being without substance, and since his arguments have not touched my points, I have “won.” Looking over past posts however, it appears he almost never actually addresses my points. No, what he has been doing has been criticizing the logic of my arguments. Rarely do I see the words "You are wrong because a, b, and c. Instead, he seems to have an unshakable faith that if I look over old threads, I will see that my arguments have been easily refuted in other threads before I came here. Looking over old threads containing similar arguments to mine, I see no such thing, but oh well. Also, looking over how long it is taking to boil down my points via his critique of my posting style, I will post part two of this response later.
P.S. gum, Polycarp, your posts are not total flames. Neither are Tom’s, for that matter, but his are closer to being inflamatory. Still, thank you for the constructive criticism.
What you call sophistry, I can convincing examples of my points. To prove that I am engaging in sophistry, you must show that it is “an argument or option which is clever and plausible, but false and misleading.” Instead, you just dismiss it out of hand. However, as I have said, they are based on personal experience, and are not likely to change your mind. Also, what you call “juvenile drive-bys”, I call making a point and either waiting for someone to make a counterpoint, or seek me out on this thread. However, since inviting people to discuse an inflamatory post in another thread is Simply Not Done Here™, I will refrain from it in the future. If someone wants clarification, they are free to ask about it on this post, but I no longer will say “I realize this post is inflammatory, so in the interest of not hijacking this topic, please respond in etc.” Instead, if I believe I have a point, I will argue it out in the same thread. That being said, are my points so juvenile? I know that most christians here feel free to pick and choose what parts of the bible they actually want to follow, but a quote from the bible disapproving universal harmony of all and mankind is a quote disproving etc. (I.e., If you have not a sword, go out and buy one, said jesus.)Your claim that I am taking such quotes out of context do not seem to hold water, seeing as how you never actually show your claim that my quotes are out of context, to the best of my memory.
I have no problems with the last sentence of that quote. All the rest however, is bullshit. Now, they might not currently state in their books of doctrine that only true Christians, a.k.a. catholics go to heaven, but it states something so similar, it isn’t surprising that the priest you mentioned came to the conclusion he did. Judaism states that once the savior comes, everyone in existence will come to realize that being jewish is the only way to be, and will all convert. I would give a cite, but when I enter in savior, and judaism, up comes far too many pages to sort through, regarding Christians trying to convert jews. Islam believes that only Islamic people have the right idea, and JRDelirious, JohnM, and David Simmons understand that the official line of the RCC is: “You are all Roman Catholics whether or not you know it, provided, of course, that you are right in your thinking.”
Perhaps the facetious title of the thread has set you off. When I named it, I was thinking of the outrage cries of how I was overreaching in moral superiority of how the RCC should handle aids in Africa. Oh, and I fail to see how, if I am speaking authoritively about “The Truth”, how is that any different from any religious organization? They claim they have more of a claim to personal morality then me, as we as a having the truth on their side, but a unsubstantiated claim of being inspired by good holds less weight then my system of morality. Also, re: “The Truth”, we have a problem of the definition of words. However, definitions aren’t right or wrong; they are based on how people use them. You define proof of the truth as being at the end of some sort of combination of your own religious beliefs, and basic logic, while I define truth as what simply makes horse-sense.
Are you referring to the fact that in the pit, people sometimes state reasons why they believe, say for example gay people should not get married or that group should do what they want, but another group can’t, then I cut-and-paste their quotes, substitute some words show how ridiculous it would sound applied to another group, and put them in a quote box labeled, “Originally Posted by Scott, not (the name of Someone I disagree with, who I am parodying)
Well, if that is your problem, thought. If I should find someone arguing against gay marriage, this tactic is hardly original, and furthermore, is not misattributing quotes, but instead clearly labeled as my own statement.
Polycarp, what the heck is an Evangelical atheïst?
Dictionary says: *Main Entry: evan·gel·i·cal
Pronunciation: "E-"van-'je-li-k&l, "e-v&n-
Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2 : PROTESTANT
3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH
5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC <the evangelical ardor of the movement’s leaders – Amos Vogel>
Evan·gel·i·cal·ism /-li-k&-"li-z&m/ noun
evan·gel·i·cal·ly /-li-k(&-)lE/ adverb *
I’m an atheïst. I don’t believe in a deity. Any deity.
And I really don’t care who else is, or isn’t.
I don’t see how I could understand your comments to be insulting me in the least. It was construtive cricism, as was Polycarps, so I lumped em’ together. However, Polycarps was slighly You see, when I hear some talking about any religion as a means of peace, it sticks in my craw, as being quite untrue. I then feel the need to point out bibilical verses praising violence, and condeming common sense. Unlike you, I feel I must lecture, much like an evangekical christian does, but for diffreent reasons. They want more souls saived, more brownie points for them, while I want a world without so much diversion and hate. Still, the fact that I do care who else is, or isn’t earns me that title.
Thanks, gum, Nicodemus2004. From Cool Quotes:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Stephen Roberts.
3 out of 100 people waste their lives being atheists. 97 out of 100 people waste their lives being idiots, killing each other on who has got the better God.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
King James Bible, Leviticus 20:13
Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who teaches my hands to wage war, and my fingers to do battle.
The Bible, Psalms 144:1
And I will dash them one against each other, the fathers and the sons, says the Lord. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.
“And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter” (1 Samuel 6:19).
“Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men” (Exodus 32:26-28).
“And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand” (Numbers 25:6-9).
“Then the men of Judah gave a shout: and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered them into their hand. And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men. Thus the children of Israel were brought under at that time, and the children of Judah prevailed, because they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers” (2 Chronicles 13:15-18).
“And Asa had an army of men . . . And there came out against them Zera the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand . . . Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power, help us, O Lord our God . . . So the Lord smote the Ethiopians” (2 Chronicles 14:8-12).
“And they found Abonibezek in Bezek: and they fought against him, and they slew the Canaanites and Perizzites. But Abonibezek fled; and they pursued after him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Abonibezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me” (Judges 1:5-7).
