Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 8,501-8,550 of 12,463

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "Lot of the argument has been left behind now and there's a great deal of ad hominem carping going on. Phrases like "you're the type of person" show no worthwhile insight at all, whatever side of this argument you're on. And I'm the type of person who genuinely believes that."

Which is why I do try to at least answer people as honestly as I can.

[Gary]

cHriS wrote: "If you had an open mind you would not rule anything out, even a magical being."

If you had an open mind you wouldn't rule out all magical beings except your favourite.

Having an open mind would be waiting to see what is really there rather than making something up and then only listening to arguments that support it.

Having an open mind means not believing in things.

[Michael]

Gary, when you say "I try to avoid phrases like "bollocks" as no matter how frustrating it is sometimes, outright mockery instead of reason is ultimately self-defeating. The subject of the mockery learns nothing and is further resistant to reasonable discourse, your audience misses an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, or perhaps to see what they was afraid was a silly question explained without scorn", I can't help feel you should lighten up. I mean, really! Use "bollocks" if you want to, let yourself go - it's just shorthand for much longer and far more tortuous meandering. We're all grown-up for God's sake (or whoever's sake you prefer!)

You also state "Again the arrogance of assuming that what you don't know, no one can know" - I addressed that misunderstanding in my last post. You might want to move on and stop deconstructing irrelevancies - or next time "bollocks" will be in capitals, though that will partly be for my own amusement.

Overall though, in your defence, you said very little I wasn't expecting.

Small piece of advice though - try to avoid saying anything that is synonymous with "it's a well-known fact". You know the ones - "a common tactic", and a couple I mentioned before. Because, you see, even if you're not a witless mouthpiece (your phrase, not mine), that kind of lead-in makes it sound like you are. Nothing immediately credible ever started with "it's a well-known fact" or any version of it.

[Gary]

Michael wrote: "I can't help feel you should lighten up. I mean, really! Use "bollocks" if you want to, let yourself go - it's just shorthand for much longer and far more tortuous meandering. We're all grown-up for God's sake (or whoever's sake you prefer!)"

Michael wrote: "Lot of the argument has been left behind now and there's a great deal of ad hominem carping going on."

Is there two Michael's posting?

My answer in any case is that I resort to reasonable discourse first. As for "tortuous meandering" the best solution is not to read it then.


Michael wrote: "You also state "Again the arrogance of assuming that what you don't know, no one can know" - I addressed that misunderstanding in my last post."

No you claimed never to have held that opinion, so therefore I highlighted the part that implied that opinion. If you withdraw the claim to "reaching the limits of our knowledge" that's fine but it then invalidates the inevitability of anthropomorphising the ineffable.

Michael wrote: "You might want to move on and stop deconstructing irrelevancies - or next time "bollocks" will be in capitals, though that will partly be for my own amusement."

You mean in a similar manner to not responding to anything I said and instead make vague claims about how relevant the other persons replies are based on your determination of relevance?

Though again theists engaging in "capslock authoritarianism" is also very common :-)

Michael wrote: "Overall though, in your defence, you said very little I wasn't expecting."

So why didn't you respond to any of it and instead first criticise my statement in support of civility, then move on to a dismissal of my points without reason or evidence cited and then end with sermonising about how to make my posts more "credible" by making a false equivalence between the relative statement I used and a similar absolutist one?

Michael wrote: "try to avoid saying anything that is synonymous with "it's a well-known fact". You know the ones - "a common tactic", and a couple I mentioned before."

I did, which is why I cited the sources. Check the thread here and elsewhere on GR. Several common tactics are well known, but I don't expect you to take my word for it, you can look for yourself.

Besides "fact" is also an absolutist statement as is indeed your phrase "Nothing immediately credible ever started with 'it's a well-known fact' or any version of it."

You have at least misinterpreted here, I hope you haven't intended to misrepresent.

[Michael]

Quoting: "Though again theists engaging in "capslock authoritarianism" is also very common :-)"

You're making me laugh now too - with you I mean obviously. Capslock authoritarianism. Mmm... Is that real? I've got a linguistics degree for my sins and I have NEVER smelled that one before. (Sorry! - for whichever part of that last sentence irks you most, but please don't tell me which one.) Of course, that's not saying I won't use it. Consider yourself sourced.

Furthermore: "Besides "fact" is also an absolutist statement as is indeed your phrase "Nothing immediately credible ever started with 'it's a well-known fact' or any version of it." - hoped you'd spot that.

On the subject of tortuous meandering, I made a note to myself when I sent the last post that you'd pick up on it, thinking it was [perhaps, maybe] personally directed. It wasn't - I was being general.

Do you reckon we're getting anywhere with this? To be honest with you, I've forgotten the question. But since amusingly I never had a particularly good answer for it, despite showing up to the party, that hardly matters, does it?

[Maria]

I think science is but a way to prove God's creationand existence, therefore, they are closely linked.

[Maria]

FYI - this is ANOTHER Maria - not me, and not my opinion!!!

[cHriS]

C-bus wrote: "cs wrote: "What was here before what is here now?"
Why does there have to have been something?"

There has to be an explanation.

If we believe in the big bang then something started it.

If not god then, something else which science has no answer for.

.....and Gary's conundrum about, if there were no time then there would be nothing, may satisfy some of the science world but really it's a bit Alice in Wonderland'ish.

Maybe it is just that we are not able to comprehend because our minds do not have the capacity.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Having an open mind would be waiting to see what is really there rather than making something up and then only listening to arguments that support it..."

That really is a daft way of thinking. It's what I refer to as logical illogicalness. Like a prisoner being given 175 year sentence with a chance of parole when he is 110. (this is true by the way).

You say ‘waiting to see what is really there’ as though a big announcement is due to be made in the next few years. We will never know.

If you refer to ‘we’ as mankind, then I don’t buy into all that. I am not really able to think past my grandparents and not many people are, and that also applies in the other direction, into the future regarding any grandchildren.

All we have, is to wonder what life is about and think that there could be something else. If science finding an answer is a 24 hour clock, then I don’t think we are more than a second into that 24 hours.

If you are serious about waiting then I think we should shut down the research from those branches of science we are discussing and spend the money on something more relevant to mankind’s needs today and not mankind in some distance future who we neither know nor care anything about.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I think science is but a way to prove God's creationand existence, therefore, they are closely linked."

There's proof of god's existence?

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "C-bus wrote: "cs wrote: "What was here before what is here now?"
Why does there have to have been something?"

There has to be an explanation.

If we believe in the big bang then something started ..."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "cs wrote: "C-bus wrote: "cs wrote: "What was here before what is here now?"
Why does there have to have been something?"

There has to be an explanation.

If we believe in the big bang then somethi..."

Interesting article. Amazing how real life can come up with stuff so strange and cosmic that it sounds like a Dr. Who episode.

and I wonder, that people using 'explanation' for 'reason'.
If the explanation just boils down to 'stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen and we got wicked lucky' will that be enough for people who have been told their whole like that there is a 'grand plan'?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote:'stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen and we got wicked lucky'.."

.....if you think that 'stuff' just happens, then maybe that is how god happened.

"C-bus wrote: http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...

scientificamerican wrote:One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence.

Is this the 'stuff' that just happens? It winks in and out of existence.

Science may not want to believe in a creator and that’s fine, but it has no alternative answer. Something winking in and out of existence in a vacuum, which I assume, this vacuum has to be inside of something, and this something has sides which will have some influence on the experiment, etc.

Can science prove that we can get something from nothing? NO. It does not even know what 'nothing' is.

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Science may not want to believe in a creator and that’s fine, but it has no alternative answer."

"Science" doesn't want to believe anything. Science is a human tool which explains observed evidence via predictive theories. Scientists may not want to believe in a creator without evidence and I don't blame them.

Religion's answer to the problem of why the universe is here is not without issues: Where does anyone's "god(s)" come from? If you argue that your god (out of the thousands envisaged by humans over the millennia) is eternal why can the universe not be eternal and the observed (and evidenced) "big bang" merely an event within this "larger" eternal universe? If time as we know it within our space-time bubble is a by-product of this particular event then it makes no sense to ask what was before from a human perspective.

Can science prove that we can get something from nothing? NO. It does not even know what 'nothing' is.

You could just as easily say "Can religion prove that we can get something from nothing? NO. It does not even know what 'nothing' is. "

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: "Science" doesn't want to believe anything. Science is a human tool which explains observed evidence via predictive theories. Scientists may not want to believe in a creator without evidence and I don't blame them.

Religion's answer to the problem ..."

Hi Hp

You say "Science" doesn't want to believe anything", as it is just a tool. Fair enough, much like when someone says "the weather forecast says rain" But we all know that it was the person telling us about the weather that said that. And anyway, you then go on to say "Religion's answer to the problem"; is that not saying what you accused me of doing?

Hp wrote: If time as we know it within our space-time bubble is a by-product of this particular event

It's the word 'if', the biggest word in the dictionary.

I could say the same about religion and I do, and that is my point, science has no better answer than the creator answer.

[Tracie]

I can't imagine life existing without both. However, how many wars are due to religion?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote:'stuff happens and it makes other stuff happen and we got wicked lucky'.."

.....if you think that 'stuff' just happens, then maybe that is how god happened.

"C-bus wrote: http://www...."

but why doe there have to be a god?
Yes, something had to happen to make stuff happen, but to jump to god actually answers nothing.

'stuff happens' is at least an answer that while not THE annswer narrows where we are looking.
Some deity did it, and managed to leave no trace of his existence doesn't answer anything and just adds more questions to the list. It widens the field, adds no knowledge and really solves nothing.

can somebody tell me why there's always the jump to god?
Do we need there to be a reason for stuff happening? If it 'just happened' is that too random and scary for people?

[cerebus]

Tracie wrote: "I can't imagine life existing without both. However, how many wars are due to religion?"
You may want to look back through the thread, this issue was addressed quite extensively, mainly by Shannon, and it is not as clear cut as you may think.

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "but why doe there have to be a god?"
Because it is easier to say "god did it" than have to think.....

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "Do we need there to be a reason for stuff happening? If it 'just happened' is that too random and scary for people? "
For some people that is definitely the issue....they cannot accept the fact that "why are we here?" is a philosophical question that doesn't necessarily have or need an answer.

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Tracie wrote: "I can't imagine life existing without both. However, how many wars are due to religion?"
You may want to look back through the thread, this issue was addressed quite extensively, mai..."

Can we please avoid another 'who started the wars' debate. That goes off the rails so fast it violates a law of physics.

[cerebus]

Travis wrote: "Can we please avoid another 'who started the wars' debate. That goes off the rails so fast it violates a law of physics. "
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to restart the discussion, just to point out it was something that had been hashed out earlier in the thread (and therefore not something we needed to go through again).

[Travis]

Cerebus wrote: "Travis wrote: "Can we please avoid another 'who started the wars' debate. That goes off the rails so fast it violates a law of physics. "
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to restart the discussion,..."

Not going after you specifically, it was just a general plea and/or exclamation of dread and despair.

[[deleted user]]

Cerebus wrote: "Tracie wrote: "I can't imagine life existing without both. However, how many wars are due to religion?"
You may want to look back through the thread, this issue was addressed quite extensively, mainly by Shannon, and it is not as clear cut as you may think."

Thank you.... :)

[Hp]

Hi Chris, hard to catch up with all the 8686 comments about this tricky subject...

cHriS wrote: "And anyway, you then go on to say "Religion's answer to the problem"; is that not saying what you accused me of doing?"

Haven't quite caught your drift here. Science comes at a problem trying to explain the observed evidence; Religion just assumes it's right and ignores any evidence that contradicts it's dogma. They approach matters in fundamentally different directions.

I could say the same about religion and I do, and that is my point, science has no better answer than the creator answer.

But I would argue it does. Science is getting closer and closer to a plausible explanation for the creation. The creator answer as a simple "god did it" is no answer at all.

God is such an anthropomorhpic explanation and is at a level of a time travelling scientist of the future. As Clark said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and to the ignorant Judeans of biblical times even we would look impressively magical (if we could just get this time travelling malarkey sorted).

[Jettcatt]

Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "Rutul wrote: "I would rather live in a world without Justin Bieber.

Haha. But on a serious note, I would rather live in a world without religion."

At the rate he's going, Justin Bi..."

To quote Justin Bieber from his song titled "Believe"

"Where would I be if you didn't believe"......He would still be an unknown young man in Canada thats where except that his followers BELIEVE in him.....Yes just another religion I do believe

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: But I would argue it does. Science is getting closer and closer to a plausible explanation for the creation. The creator answer as a simple "god did it" is no answer at all.
"

Closer and closer? Can you suggest how close?

If I have a journey of 6000 miles and I walk 10 feet in that direction, I would say I was getting closer.

You can win a game of poker with a poor hand. The belief in a god may be seen as a poor explanation, but it is better than no hand. Science is still shuffling the deck.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: But I would argue it does. Science is getting closer and closer to a plausible explanation for the creation. The creator answer as a simple "god did it" is no answer at all.
"

Closer and..."

How is god a better explanation?
To keep with a poker analogy, god is you holding no cards and announcing you've got a full house.

[Travis]

Jettcatt wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "Rutul wrote: "I would rather live in a world without Justin Bieber.

Haha. But on a serious note, I would rather live in a world without religion."

At the rate he's g..."

Justin Bieber quotes...?
I changed my mind, you guys can use that Einstein 'science is blind' quote all you want, if this is the alternative.

[Diana]

I would rather live in a world without religion. I would rather live where decisions are based on logic and fact than on emotions and legends.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Science isn't indoctrination

Training, teaching, coaching, how, why, what, where and when. No different from other subjects.

Gary Wrote: Because I've studied religion too, and I am not making claims that I know a particular religion better than you because I've studied it less.

…and I do not make claims that I know more than you. But I did disagree with you on one point, I was repeating what a Prof. Cox said and so by disagreeing with me you would also have to be disagreeing with him, but you could not be seen to be disagreeing with him so you alleged that I must not have understood what he said. Would you not agree that was Simple arrogance.

Gary wrote: Prove that science cannot find the answers. In fact prove that the "answers" you are talking about exist. What are these answers that science cannot find?

Answers exist. Every question has an answer; maybe we will not find all the answers, but answers exist. But, I am more inclined to think that maybe we are not asking the right questions.

When I say science will not find the answers to what started everything, I don’t think they will. Now you may see that as arrogance, but I don’t. I see it as a reasonable assumption from my view point. Much like a supporter of a football team will make an assumption about how his team will play in the next match, taking into consideration past performance etc.

Gary wrote: What I do is repeatedly point out the fallacies and assumptions that people like you make when claiming there is a god.

But that also works the other way………. come up with a better answer and we will stop suggesting that there is a god.

It’s not really about whether there is a god or not. It is about science keeping an open mind until it has proof, while others will continue to hold their belief because there is nothing to disprove their belief. It is only forums and debates like this that folks are bothered to discuss it.

Gary wrote; Your error is in the assumption that the universe is so simple that you can understand it alone without need for study or the knowledge of others.

The exact opposite. As I have said before, I don’t think the human mind has the capacity to understand everything so it is bound to hit a brick wall at some point.

Gary wrote: You also make a great over simplification of understanding versus knowledge. Scientists know the difference. We may understand every letter in the alphabet, that doesn't grant you knowledge of every thing written in that alphabet, but neither do you need to assume that there is a mystical force that provides the writing we are posting here.

I am as sure as knowing that dolphins will never rule the world.

You know every letter in the alphabet because we invented (formed) it. So we can progress to things like Shakespeare. But there are things that we will not discover/invent/ or find out that will stop our progress in a particular direction.

Gary wrote: "Why does it rain candy every day in Germany?"

To be pedantic for a minute, you would have to know that there was NOT a universe somewhere that had a place call Germany where it did rain candy every day. If it is reasonable to assume that there is not, then it is also reasonable to assume that one of the many way we came into being was through a creator.


Gary wrote :So we may be living in a curved space rather than a flat infinite one..

Of course, with worm holes that could possible let us travel far in a short time. But we just don’t know.

Gary wrote: You have no proof god exists, just as you have no proof time is infinite..

To me, and yes it just me, although I may have read this somewhere, time is not infinite, it is no more than a measurement. There was no yesterday and there is no tomorrow. It is always now.

Gary wrote: You love the "Lucy" thing don't you, because its one little fragment you can cling to so you can deny any evidence to the contrary because some scientists got something wrong, well who discovered that? More scientists.

At last we agree. Although I did not know that they got it wrong, I just thought that they were not as right as they once were. On a serious not, it does leave the question of man coming down from the trees and walking upright, in doubt.

[Sachin]

I know I am new here, and the topic a bit old; but the views and perspectives of people are not...though they change with times...

Firstly I am an atheist too, prior to that I was raised to believe in Hinduism, though none could bind me and I believed in all the religions...

I thought I knew so much, until I stumbled upon this discussion. Someone said it right - the more you learn, the more you realize your ignorance.
I liked the messages conveyed by - Sai Thein Than, Pandora, from Heather and Barbarossa & Jiraiyathesage... - The words they used are just so appropriate, beautiful and unbiased...

But what I realized after going through numerous comments above is that:- both religion and science have their own ethics, code of conduct or whatever you say. Then there are times when Religion and/or Science are questioned and doubted. Often due to people's uncertainty, unreliability or lack of devotion in whatever they follow. But then one should no follow something blindingly.

What I realized is that I never really actually believed in god, but yes I believed in the teachings that the wise men of old times passed down generation after generation in the name of those holy figures - be it Bhagwadgita, Bible, Quran etc.

Then I comprehended that I was better off being an atheist and follow those teachings and while believing in Science.
Just because some are atheist does not imply that they cannot tell right from wrong. We tag those things wrong which would hurt us when done to us.

But then again I agree with Sai when he said some people need direction, an inspiration to add meaning to their life.

Everyone here provided a very good perception from their own viewpoints. I feel fortunate and honored to have come across you guys.

Thanks

[Hp]

cHriS wrote: "Closer and closer? Can you suggest how close?"

You are kidding right? A nanometre nearer the truth is better that just sitting there for thousands of years not bothering to even look for it. Getting (however slowly) "closer and closer" to reality (via science) is better than just accepting a dogmatic belief in the supernatural (with no evidence whatsoever) that explains absolutely nothing.

When it comes to "god did it" I could just as easily say "rumple snethed wogle nubbez" is an explanation for the universe we experience and the blatantly indifferent and uncaring way it deals with our (and all others) lives. My "rumple..." is unprovable, unfalsifiable and is just as ridiculous as the idea that an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving big human like entity looks over us all - yet does nothing...

[Ally]

I am a Christian but would rather live in a world without Religion as Religion starts all wars!

[cHriS]

Hp wrote: My "rumple..." is unprovable, unfalsifiable and is just as ridiculous as the idea that an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving big human like entity looks over us all - yet does nothing...
..."

It's not your 'rumple' that's ridiculous, it is your 'nanometre nearer the truth is better that just sitting there for thousands of years not bothering to even look for it' that is ridiculous.

Look for it? Look for what? And why?

And for whom? Mankind?

At least those who believe in a creator have the answer they want now and not live their life never knowing.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Hp wrote: My "rumple..." is unprovable, unfalsifiable and is just as ridiculous as the idea that an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-loving big human like entity looks over us all - yet does nothing....."

So, looking for the answer is ridiculous, but just making up an answer because you have to know is perfectly reasonable?

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: So, looking for the answer is ridiculous, but just making up an answer because you have to know is perfectly reasonable?
.."

So tell me, how is science doing regarding finding the answer?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: So, looking for the answer is ridiculous, but just making up an answer because you have to know is perfectly reasonable?
.."

So tell me, how is science doing regarding finding the a..."

Slow but steady.
Is there a deadline?

So, if science is taking too long, you think we should just make something up?
god is not an answer, it is a guess. If it was an answer, you could provide some actual evidence.

Even as guesses go, it still is less than what science provides. It's plucking something out of the air, because otherwise it takes too long, or because there's too much work involved.

It's the equivilant of a child whining about having to do homework, because 'Math is hard...!'


You want an answer and you want it now, but you won't accept science because it's not 100%, so you choose something made up because it sounds good.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: You want an answer and you want it now, but you won't accept science because it's not 100%..."

I accept science, for most things, but not this, because I know science has no chance of finding any answers.

Believing is not the same as choosing something made up because it sounds good.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: You want an answer and you want it now, but you won't accept science because it's not 100%..."

I accept science, for most things, but not this, because I know science has no chance o..."

believing something that has no chance of giving you any real answers because science is taking too long, sounds pretty much exactly like you are accepting something because it sounds good.

maybe you could explain the difference, as well as explaining how you know science can't give you the answers, but you only believe in god.
seems like you would either know both or believe both.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: believing something that has no chance of giving you any real answers because science is taking too long, sounds pretty much exactly like you are accepting something because it sounds good.

maybe you could explain the difference, as well as explaining how you know science can't give you the answers, but you only believe in god.
seems like you would either know both or believe both.
.."

I don't think the human mind is capable of working it out, and anyway I don't think science will even find out because mankind will have destroyed its self long before then.

And even if science did come up with answers in a few thousand years from now, what good would that do me? I would be long gone.

So what choice is there? Keep an open mind? for what?

Believe in a creator or don't believe in a creator.

If you believe in something then it may well be true.

[[deleted user]]

Ally wrote: "I am a Christian but would rather live in a world without Religion as Religion starts all wars!"

Why do you think religion starts all wars? Have you learned that from history classes or read that in history books? Can you think of any wars that weren't started as a result of religion? I can think of many. Yes, religion has been been the precipitating factor in many wars. All? No.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Ally wrote: "I am a Christian but would rather live in a world without Religion as Religion starts all wars!"

Why do you think religion starts all wars? Have you learned that from history classes..."


Not the 'who started more wars' debate!

Is there an emoticon for 'running out of the room screaming'?

[Shanna]

cHriS rote: "If you believe in something then it may well be true."

Wrong, if something's "true"(by true I mean real or not, reality or delusion), then it's "true" regardless of whether or you, or I, (or millions or no-one) believes in it.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: believing something that has no chance of giving you any real answers because science is taking too long, sounds pretty much exactly like you are accepting something because it sounds..."

I can't decided which is more impressive: the fact that you may have given the most honest answer I've ever heard in defense of religion or how thoroughly surreal your reasoning is.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Not the 'who started more wars' debate!

Is there an emoticon for 'running out of the room screaming'?
"

Absolutely fascinating...!

You don't ever seem to have a problem when people claim that religion causes ALL wars.

Which is a lie....

However, you cry foul when someone points out the truth.

Why?

I find that a decidedly curious phenomena.

What problem do you have with the truth?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Not the 'who started more wars' debate!

Is there an emoticon for 'running out of the room screaming'?
"

Absolutely fascinating...!

You don't ever seem to have a problem when peop..."

No, I have just been here for the war chat and it always gets ugly.
So, the original comment, I ignore and then start praying that no one responds.
As soon as there is a response, I become that guy that jumps behind the bar in the western, right before the gunfight breaks out.

The truth I don't mind, but the war debate is another version of that Einstein quote. It shows up about every ten pages and things get derailed for a page or two.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "No, I have just been here for the war chat and it always gets ugly."

So, for you ....

It's not ugly to promote a lie. It's not ugly to say that all wars have been caused by religion.

However, it is ugly to say that's not accurate. To say, you know, religion has caused many wars but not all.

Could you expound upon your definition of ugliness?

Seems a bit bass ackwards to me.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "No, I have just been here for the war chat and it always gets ugly."

So, for you ....

It's not ugly to promote a lie. It's not ugly to say that all wars have been caused by religi..."

the truth or lie is not the ugly part. It's that the last couple times this conversation has occurred, it got heated and ugly.

I was merely making a semi-humorous remark as I have been here for several of these go rounds and even got compared to the nazis during one, so would rather dodge the whole thing.

since anything I say seems to be taken as me disputing your claim, I'll move on and let you get to it.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "since anything I say seems to be taken as me disputing your claim, I'll move on and let you get to it.
"

Fascinating way to frame the discussion, Travis.

Either accurate information is valued or it isn't. Pretty simple. Until, of course, it isn't.