Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: "It can be both a metaphor and have an element of truth to it.
Words can multitask.
Think of all the allegories in the bible.
It's really not the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha!' moment you seem to think it is.
"
An element of truth is different from stating religion has wailed on science.
You know ... what I don't get ....
It's 2013 and people are still so incredibly close-minded.
You really don't see it. Do you? By making that statement, ... Ingersoll, you, etc... you make people invisible. You take people who lived and stood for something and make it as if they didn't exist. All of the people in all of the groups I mentioned .... When you refuse to acknowledge them and the fact that they didn't do the things that "religion" did, you devalue them.
And, when it's pointed out, instead having an "oh, crap" moment and taking a different course, you continue ... and, it would seem, poke some sort of fun at me for mentioning Druids.
I'm curious ....
People poke fun at cHriS for not understanding why I'd stick up for people ... why?
It's not just cHriS who doesn't get it sometimes, right?
Words can multitask.
Think of all the allegories in the bible.
It's really not the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha!' moment you seem to think it is.
"
An element of truth is different from stating religion has wailed on science.
You know ... what I don't get ....
It's 2013 and people are still so incredibly close-minded.
You really don't see it. Do you? By making that statement, ... Ingersoll, you, etc... you make people invisible. You take people who lived and stood for something and make it as if they didn't exist. All of the people in all of the groups I mentioned .... When you refuse to acknowledge them and the fact that they didn't do the things that "religion" did, you devalue them.
And, when it's pointed out, instead having an "oh, crap" moment and taking a different course, you continue ... and, it would seem, poke some sort of fun at me for mentioning Druids.
I'm curious ....
People poke fun at cHriS for not understanding why I'd stick up for people ... why?
It's not just cHriS who doesn't get it sometimes, right?
Travis wrote: "Note to self: don't make statements that start with 'note to self', as it makes you sound like a sulky 15 year old.
and I live with one, so I know whereof what I speak. "
Careful.... You know what Gary says about people who poke fun of others. Something about the fact that they don't have an argument and, therefore, deride others to cover for that....
and I live with one, so I know whereof what I speak. "
Careful.... You know what Gary says about people who poke fun of others. Something about the fact that they don't have an argument and, therefore, deride others to cover for that....
Travis wrote: "Yes, but the tendency of people to then make the leap that 'So, that means the bible must be true, because the romans didn't write about it either...!' is a questionable argument."
Except you're talking to me ... not to people ... and I didn't make that argument.
And, ...
What?
Because you have an issue with "people" making an argument for the Bible being true, you think it's okay to tell people the Romans wrote everything down. Therefore, silly, silly people, Jesus never lived, was never a man, never taught. If so, he'd been written about. Is that it?
That's bunk, but you know that ... in mentioning I should go after the poster who said that "if" it was said. Why take the charge at all, Travis? Why not let the people, plural, who have used that argument before come forth, if they have the intellectual honesty and morality that everyone here speaks of? Let them defend this or not .... Let them answer for why they'd use such an argument, misinformed or otherwise.
Can't help but notice they're not doing so. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're making a choice not to do so.
Except you're talking to me ... not to people ... and I didn't make that argument.
And, ...
What?
Because you have an issue with "people" making an argument for the Bible being true, you think it's okay to tell people the Romans wrote everything down. Therefore, silly, silly people, Jesus never lived, was never a man, never taught. If so, he'd been written about. Is that it?
That's bunk, but you know that ... in mentioning I should go after the poster who said that "if" it was said. Why take the charge at all, Travis? Why not let the people, plural, who have used that argument before come forth, if they have the intellectual honesty and morality that everyone here speaks of? Let them defend this or not .... Let them answer for why they'd use such an argument, misinformed or otherwise.
Can't help but notice they're not doing so. That doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they're making a choice not to do so.
Travis wrote: "We'll again, I don't keep count of the converts, but the fact that some people may have rethought their belief system and moved on from it does happen, and it's not all evil atheists.
the fact that you are acting like the only things that make people change are the war and romans arguments or that are we all evil liars putting a metal whammy on poor innocent believers sort of makes me sick as well."
To believe that would make me an idiot. Last I checked, I wasn't an idiot. People make choices for a variety of reasons. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say a large number of non-believers become so due to lack of evidence. I'm aware of that and have always acknowledged that.
I'm not going to ignore, however, the arguments and possible tactics that are employed here.
the fact that you are acting like the only things that make people change are the war and romans arguments or that are we all evil liars putting a metal whammy on poor innocent believers sort of makes me sick as well."
To believe that would make me an idiot. Last I checked, I wasn't an idiot. People make choices for a variety of reasons. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd say a large number of non-believers become so due to lack of evidence. I'm aware of that and have always acknowledged that.
I'm not going to ignore, however, the arguments and possible tactics that are employed here.
Travis wrote: "I'm sorry if you had a bad experience like that, but to then lump us all together and act like all we atheists do is repeat war and romans over and over for 190 pages when there have been a multitude of arguments against religion is wrong and petty and the same kind of factually wrong generalization you are accusing us all of.
...
maybe those converts that we atheists have wracked up started thinking for themselves and decided the world is enough it was time for god to go hang out with all the other imaginary friends you are supposed to grow up and move on from. "
Are people thinking for themselves when they say war caused all religion and get ticked off when people say otherwise. Let's just not talk about it!
Are people thinking for themselves when they say the Romans wrote everything down?
Are people thinking for themselves when they say "religion" tried to kill science in its infancy?
Are people thinking for themselves when they throw water in the face of the believers who appear intelligent in order to wake them up?
Hmmmm....
By the way, I didn't say that's all non-believers have done here, as you're well aware. To say that, though, might diminish the impact of my argument, so it's likely a good tactic. And, ultimately, those are some of the go-to arguments ... war being the one most used.
Here's to a day when people actually do thinking for themselves vs. simply talk about thinking for themselves.
And, ... as you're well aware, I'm totally cool with people choosing atheism. I just don't like the idea of people making that choice based on deception. We can ignore that part, though, if it makes people more comfortable.
...
maybe those converts that we atheists have wracked up started thinking for themselves and decided the world is enough it was time for god to go hang out with all the other imaginary friends you are supposed to grow up and move on from. "
Are people thinking for themselves when they say war caused all religion and get ticked off when people say otherwise. Let's just not talk about it!
Are people thinking for themselves when they say the Romans wrote everything down?
Are people thinking for themselves when they say "religion" tried to kill science in its infancy?
Are people thinking for themselves when they throw water in the face of the believers who appear intelligent in order to wake them up?
Hmmmm....
By the way, I didn't say that's all non-believers have done here, as you're well aware. To say that, though, might diminish the impact of my argument, so it's likely a good tactic. And, ultimately, those are some of the go-to arguments ... war being the one most used.
Here's to a day when people actually do thinking for themselves vs. simply talk about thinking for themselves.
And, ... as you're well aware, I'm totally cool with people choosing atheism. I just don't like the idea of people making that choice based on deception. We can ignore that part, though, if it makes people more comfortable.
cerebus wrote: "Morality predates religion"
Yes. I agree.
I'm curious, though....
Is it moral to make false statements? Is it moral to continue to make false statements even when they're proven false? Is it moral to try to get people to stop talking about the truth? Is it moral to brand all religions and, let's not play, believers, as those who tried to smother science while in the crib ... when it was really the Christian religion?
I'm unclear regarding how this fits the present discussion.
Yes. I agree.
I'm curious, though....
Is it moral to make false statements? Is it moral to continue to make false statements even when they're proven false? Is it moral to try to get people to stop talking about the truth? Is it moral to brand all religions and, let's not play, believers, as those who tried to smother science while in the crib ... when it was really the Christian religion?
I'm unclear regarding how this fits the present discussion.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It can be both a metaphor and have an element of truth to it.Words can multitask.
Think of all the allegories in the bible.
It's really not the 'Ah-hah! Gotcha!' moment you seem to..."
and yet, you keep making blanket statements as well, and that's okay because your cause is just.
religion has wailed on science. It's happened in the past and it's happening now.
I don't think Ingersol's quote can be taken as literal, but it's him stating his feeling on the conflict between religion and science.
I can agree with his idea and still think it's not literal.
The bible is full of these kind of allegorical ( or maybe it's a metaphor. I'm pre-coffee, so not sure) statements so this sudden outrage seems odd to me.
I'm sorry you are upset that we have not posted a list of each individual religion and wether they are on the wailed or not wailed list or each individual member of those religions and also listed should then be held responsible as well, but if you belong to a religion and then want to disavow any bad thing that religion has done then you are cherry picking like is done with the bible.
If you wish to be the spokesman for every religion, then feel free to bring them up when you feel one is unfairly included/excluded in a conversation, but otherwise, people are going to use the blanket term religion, as shorthand.
Just like you use non-believers, instead of listing atheist, skeptic, agnostic etc.
and I'm not poking fun of you about the Druids. You seemed to have developed a genuine interest in them while you've been researching religions and it caught my attention, as it's not a typical group to reference when listing religions.
The druids don't get brought up alot in casual conversation.
It's 2013 and a huge portion of the population still have an imaginary friend and want to enact laws and change school books based on what he tells them.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Note to self: don't make statements that start with 'note to self', as it makes you sound like a sulky 15 year old.and I live with one, so I know whereof what I speak. "
Careful....."
Because 'note to self' was intended as a serious presentation of an argument and not the kind of petulant snark that you would never accept if it came from one of your students?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Yes, but the tendency of people to then make the leap that 'So, that means the bible must be true, because the romans didn't write about it either...!' is a questionable argument."..."
and I'm just stating my point of view on the roman thing and why people have issues with it as an argument.
I don't think they wrote everything down and I've said a couple times in other discusions that history is messy, at the same time, the two events you mention have been referenced by multiple historical sources, the bible pretty much has itself as a reference.
I'm not taking the charge, I'm doing what I always do, being the spokesman for me, and presenting what I think of a subject with the occasional bit of 'this may be where so and so is coming from' speculation.
But, if you are admitting the people you have the problem with have wandered off, yelling with the people that stayed and talked with you,
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "We'll again, I don't keep count of the converts, but the fact that some people may have rethought their belief system and moved on from it does happen, and it's not all evil atheists..."I'm glad to hear that you've done a thorough check and can reassure us you are not an idiot.
Wasn't really a concern though.
but, at the same time to say 'I know there are multiple reasons', when the only ones you have been mentioning are romans and war for a page or two, seems a bit disingenuous.
Unless, this is your public 'oh crap, you're right' moment, in which case I will move on.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I'm sorry if you had a bad experience like that, but to then lump us all together and act like all we atheists do is repeat war and romans over and over for 190 pages when there have..."Well, I have problems with people choosing religion based on deception, so we are on the same page, sort of.
I just feel you were emphasizing the deception and making it sound like a common practice.
You were creeping into generalization.
the individual cases you mention, I agree are not cool and not the way that I feel the case for atheism should be made.
Shannon wrote: "cerebus wrote: "Morality predates religion"Yes. I agree.
I'm curious, though....
Is it moral to make false statements? Is it moral to continue to make false statements even when they're prove..."
Let's turn that around, as the same questions can be asked of religion, with the addition, that religion advertizes itself as a moral authority.
When atheists do that stuff, it's the individual, because we are not that organized, with religion, it's the group doing or condoning those things.
Heck, a lot of the time it's in the rule book. Perpetuating untruths and proven false statements is the bedrock religion is built on.
Travis wrote: "Just like you use non-believers, instead of listing atheist, skeptic, agnostic etc."
Not trying to be argumentative but it really isn't the same.
First, I always say "many" or "some" .... I don't think I make statements regarding all non-believers, here or in the world.
In addition, when one says religion did a certain thing, it's not an accurate statement. All religions didn't. So, one is either unclear as to the history of the thing or one is intentionally branding all religions as the same, with the same history.
Second, .... I used to use the word atheist in the way you're suggesting. I'd use the term and think it covered all non-believers.
Well, Gary pointed out that the term is misused in that way. There are such a wide variety of non-believers, from atheists to agnostics, etc.... C-Cose asked or I asked what term would be best. Gary said, as far as he was concerned, non-believer would likely be best. So, I adopted that term ... to be more inclusive, to include all possible non-believers, to acknowledge difference.
It's very different to ask why some non-believers believe certain things vs. stating religion attempted to kill science in the crib.
But, if you don't see the difference, I think it would likely be best to leave this particular discussion. Either you understand the history and/or understand that blaming all religions for something that one religion did is wrong or you don't. Over 24 hours later ... I'm guessing there's nothing I could say that would make a difference to you or in the way you view the world. It seems to me that you have a lens and will stick with that lens. That's your choice, Travis.
Not trying to be argumentative but it really isn't the same.
First, I always say "many" or "some" .... I don't think I make statements regarding all non-believers, here or in the world.
In addition, when one says religion did a certain thing, it's not an accurate statement. All religions didn't. So, one is either unclear as to the history of the thing or one is intentionally branding all religions as the same, with the same history.
Second, .... I used to use the word atheist in the way you're suggesting. I'd use the term and think it covered all non-believers.
Well, Gary pointed out that the term is misused in that way. There are such a wide variety of non-believers, from atheists to agnostics, etc.... C-Cose asked or I asked what term would be best. Gary said, as far as he was concerned, non-believer would likely be best. So, I adopted that term ... to be more inclusive, to include all possible non-believers, to acknowledge difference.
It's very different to ask why some non-believers believe certain things vs. stating religion attempted to kill science in the crib.
But, if you don't see the difference, I think it would likely be best to leave this particular discussion. Either you understand the history and/or understand that blaming all religions for something that one religion did is wrong or you don't. Over 24 hours later ... I'm guessing there's nothing I could say that would make a difference to you or in the way you view the world. It seems to me that you have a lens and will stick with that lens. That's your choice, Travis.
Travis wrote: "and I'm just stating my point of view on the roman thing and why people have issues with it as an argument.
I don't think they wrote everything down and I've said a couple times in other discusions that history is messy, at the same time, the two events you mention have been referenced by multiple historical sources, the bible pretty much has itself as a reference."
A lot can be found in the term "pretty much"....
There are people, two, who wrote of some of the events that allegedly occurred and are reported in the Bible. (Notice how I phrased that. It's the same way I always phrase such things.) Of course, they wrote several decades later.
Funny thing ....
The people, outside the Roman machine, who wrote about Boudicca and Hannibal also did so several decades later.
Huh....
Interestingly enough, people here have attempted to argue that we shouldn't believe the written record in the first instance, coming decades later and all.
Fascinating ....
And, ....
The argument in question is not as you're stating it. Why are you saying otherwise? Not rhetorical.
I asked non-believers who have claimed that the Romans wrote down everything why they'd believe such a thing ... when it's false. Further, I mentioned that I thought it wrong to use that as an argument with believers. You believe Jesus lived and taught ... why ... the Romans wrote down everything and never mentioned him. I cry foul on that argument. The only argument that has been made here about the Romans is that ... that they recorded all and didn't mention Jesus, therefore, believers shouldn't believe.
I don't think they wrote everything down and I've said a couple times in other discusions that history is messy, at the same time, the two events you mention have been referenced by multiple historical sources, the bible pretty much has itself as a reference."
A lot can be found in the term "pretty much"....
There are people, two, who wrote of some of the events that allegedly occurred and are reported in the Bible. (Notice how I phrased that. It's the same way I always phrase such things.) Of course, they wrote several decades later.
Funny thing ....
The people, outside the Roman machine, who wrote about Boudicca and Hannibal also did so several decades later.
Huh....
Interestingly enough, people here have attempted to argue that we shouldn't believe the written record in the first instance, coming decades later and all.
Fascinating ....
And, ....
The argument in question is not as you're stating it. Why are you saying otherwise? Not rhetorical.
I asked non-believers who have claimed that the Romans wrote down everything why they'd believe such a thing ... when it's false. Further, I mentioned that I thought it wrong to use that as an argument with believers. You believe Jesus lived and taught ... why ... the Romans wrote down everything and never mentioned him. I cry foul on that argument. The only argument that has been made here about the Romans is that ... that they recorded all and didn't mention Jesus, therefore, believers shouldn't believe.
Travis wrote: "at the same time to say 'I know there are multiple reasons', when the only ones you have been mentioning are romans and war for a page or two, seems a bit disingenuous.
Unless, this is your public 'oh crap, you're right' moment, in which case I will move on. "
Funny thing, Travis.
I'm one of the only people on this thread who have had public "oh, crap" moments. When I'm wrong, I say it. In addition, I've even apologized. It's something I stand on and stand for. I own my stuff.
Regarding this discussion, ....
I've been told by a non-believer here to ask questions if I have them.
Well, guess what? I asked....
Given the Ingersoll quote, the mention of "pulp fiction", the constant mention of "you" and "you" and ... oh, I didn't mean you, I had a lot rumbling in my head. So, I asked some very specific questions.
Yet, no one is answering them ... which is somewhat telling. Except you, of course. Charging into battle for the others. Something we have in common at this point.
I have said ... over and over again ... that the best argument against belief is lack of evidence. Everyone with a memory and a shred of honesty will, at this time, go back in time and say ... oh, yeah, she has.
I've admitted I have NO proof, scientific evidence. I've even said, over and over, that the point of argument should be that ... not half of the other stuff that gets thrown around and about ... stuff that, sometimes, is blatantly and horrifyingly false.
So, seriously, Travis ....
You can say I'm being disingenuous about 20 more times if you want. Some might believe it, I suppose. But, the thing is ...
... as you guys have told cHriS ...
Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.
I asked direct questions. Answer them. Ignore them.
To paint me as someone that I'm not, says far less about me than you might imagine.
Unless, this is your public 'oh crap, you're right' moment, in which case I will move on. "
Funny thing, Travis.
I'm one of the only people on this thread who have had public "oh, crap" moments. When I'm wrong, I say it. In addition, I've even apologized. It's something I stand on and stand for. I own my stuff.
Regarding this discussion, ....
I've been told by a non-believer here to ask questions if I have them.
Well, guess what? I asked....
Given the Ingersoll quote, the mention of "pulp fiction", the constant mention of "you" and "you" and ... oh, I didn't mean you, I had a lot rumbling in my head. So, I asked some very specific questions.
Yet, no one is answering them ... which is somewhat telling. Except you, of course. Charging into battle for the others. Something we have in common at this point.
I have said ... over and over again ... that the best argument against belief is lack of evidence. Everyone with a memory and a shred of honesty will, at this time, go back in time and say ... oh, yeah, she has.
I've admitted I have NO proof, scientific evidence. I've even said, over and over, that the point of argument should be that ... not half of the other stuff that gets thrown around and about ... stuff that, sometimes, is blatantly and horrifyingly false.
So, seriously, Travis ....
You can say I'm being disingenuous about 20 more times if you want. Some might believe it, I suppose. But, the thing is ...
... as you guys have told cHriS ...
Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.
I asked direct questions. Answer them. Ignore them.
To paint me as someone that I'm not, says far less about me than you might imagine.
Travis wrote: "the individual cases you mention, I agree are not cool and not the way that I feel the case for atheism should be made. "
In this, we agree. Further, as I've mentioned before, I don't believe in religious indoctrination either.
In this, we agree. Further, as I've mentioned before, I don't believe in religious indoctrination either.
Travis wrote: "Let's turn that around, as the same questions can be asked of religion, with the addition, that religion advertizes itself as a moral authority.
When atheists do that stuff, it's the individual, because we are not that organized, with religion, it's the group doing or condoning those things.
Heck, a lot of the time it's in the rule book. Perpetuating untruths and proven false statements is the bedrock religion is built on. "
Those questions have been asked. Again and again. Over and over. To the nth degree. Non-believers have been asked all of that.
What hasn't been asked is what I asked?
Why?
Further, ... some, SOME, atheists are far more organized that some would admit. No, it's not always an individual thing. It might be some of the time. A lot of the time. Most of the time, maybe. But, again, I read the American Atheist page. Extensively. I know what's written there. I know what's advocated. So, ...
Again, non-believers can answer my questions or can remain silent and wait until they want to question a believer to make another statement.
When atheists do that stuff, it's the individual, because we are not that organized, with religion, it's the group doing or condoning those things.
Heck, a lot of the time it's in the rule book. Perpetuating untruths and proven false statements is the bedrock religion is built on. "
Those questions have been asked. Again and again. Over and over. To the nth degree. Non-believers have been asked all of that.
What hasn't been asked is what I asked?
Why?
Further, ... some, SOME, atheists are far more organized that some would admit. No, it's not always an individual thing. It might be some of the time. A lot of the time. Most of the time, maybe. But, again, I read the American Atheist page. Extensively. I know what's written there. I know what's advocated. So, ...
Again, non-believers can answer my questions or can remain silent and wait until they want to question a believer to make another statement.
Easiest question ever.A world without religion. A freer world with far less misogyny and homophobia. I can't help but wonder how ours would've turned out although I feel (as history has shown) that people will always come up with their own religions to believe in. It seems to be a human trait. Just looking back now we know of various religions of the past (and far more we have no idea of).
Science advances technology, medicine, discovery, etc. Just think how much further we'd be along without religious forces oppressing it for centuries.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "and I'm just stating my point of view on the roman thing and why people have issues with it as an argument. I don't think they wrote everything down and I've said a couple times in ..."
and again, the romans not writing about Jesus being used as evidence that the bible might be true is where my issue lies.
The romans went to Britain and never wrote about the Loch Ness monster, but using that as positive evidence is where the whole roman thing bothers me.
I have no problem with you being bothered that people claim the romans wrote it all down and don't dispute that claim.
the implication of Hannibal, didn't get written about, really happened, Bodecia ( bet I screwed up the spelling) didn't get written about, really happened, so Jesus...
It's at best, lazy logic.
Your implication is vague and I can see if you are disputing the method, rather than the actual claim, but enough people have used the negative proof counts as proof argument that I may be lumping you in unfairly.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Just like you use non-believers, instead of listing atheist, skeptic, agnostic etc."Not trying to be argumentative but it really isn't the same.
First, I always say "many" or "som..."
again, I'm sorry if the umbrella term 'religion' bothers you, but it is short hand and people are not always going to think to add 'some' or want to list every individual religion that does or doesn't do something.
saying 'science' when what you might be really talking about 'biology, physics or math' is a version of it.
If your particular brand of religion is being slighted, then go ahead and say so, but the conversation is not always going to get that specific or bogged down in those details.
try as we might people are to be posting on the hurry, late at night or many other reasons to resort to discussion short hand.
I think you are again ascribing deliberate malice where there is little.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "at the same time to say 'I know there are multiple reasons', when the only ones you have been mentioning are romans and war for a page or two, seems a bit disingenuous.Unless, this..."
again, you are attributing deliberate-ness of intent where can be seen in many cases, either a rush of thinking/typing or a version of shorthand.
but you tend to take every mis-used group 'you', general comment or person getting jumbled while trying to reply to a multitude of thoughts/posts as a personal slight or that you must step up and be the spokes person for the believers.
If a comment doesn't apply to you, then it's okay to shrug it off rather than make sure we know it doesn't.
Not ever dumb comment needs a reply and not every poster who wanders off is doing it to snub you.
and please stop using chris as an example, after the gay marriage debate, I'm through with him and I'm just going to react negatively if he's part of your argument.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Let's turn that around, as the same questions can be asked of religion, with the addition, that religion advertizes itself as a moral authority.When atheists do that stuff, it's th..."
That's fine, but referring to the organized atheist movement is just going to get a blank look from me, as I'm not connected to any groups and really didn't know there was one till you mentioned it.
I get there is some vague community of atheists out there, but it's not like we have big buildings in every city where we gather and then have coffee afterwards.
Personally, I think the anarchists are more organized.
Travis wrote: "personal slight or that you must step up and be the spokes person for the believers"
Maybe it's about the fact that I hold truth in high regard ....
I've also taken a stand for the non-believers here, both as non-believers and personally, when they were attacked personally.
The above doesn't take that into account, does it.
I don't play teams.
I have a thing about truth ... and ... hypocrisy. Sometimes, the hypocrisy doesn't ride me ... sometimes, it does.
Maybe it's about the fact that I hold truth in high regard ....
I've also taken a stand for the non-believers here, both as non-believers and personally, when they were attacked personally.
The above doesn't take that into account, does it.
I don't play teams.
I have a thing about truth ... and ... hypocrisy. Sometimes, the hypocrisy doesn't ride me ... sometimes, it does.
Travis wrote: "again, I'm sorry if the umbrella term 'religion' bothers you, but it is short hand and people are not always going to think to add 'some' or want to list every individual religion that does or doesn't do something.
saying 'science' when what you might be really talking about 'biology, physics or math' is a version of it."
Question ....
Let's pretend I started talking about something. Let's say I was trying to make a point. Let's say I kept saying "science" over and over again.
Let's say someone, Gary or Hazel or some science person, said, "You know, Shannon, you're really talking about physics. I would be best to reference it as physics and this is why...."
What do you think I'd do at that moment?
I'd change terms, right?
Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior, I'd change terms. Kind of like I started using the term "non-believer" instead of atheist. Right?
Now, imagine this ....
Imagine I said the Ingersoll quote was a great representation of the relationship between religion and science.
Imagine you said, "Really? All religions? Are you sure? In point of fact, no."
Back and forth ... leading you to ask me to give examples.
Me? I'd choose not to give you examples, evidence ... and ... I'd keep saying it over and over. No, no really. When you think about it, all religion, at some point, tried to kill science.
Imagine you, again, trying to explain why that's not accurate. It's not historically accurate. You say so and give examples, even including a cite. You talk about the injustice of it, branding all people as one ... claiming that all religions tried to kill science .... Let's say you even spoke to me about making people invisible. When one doesn't acknowledge the difference between people and religions, either one is saying they're exactly the same, which isn't just, or one is diminishing, devaluing, certain people.
Imagine saying that to me .... If you said that to me, what do you think I'd do?
Hmmm...?
At this point, two days later, I'm thinking, now, arguing that it's simple shorthand doesn't mean much to me. If that comment had been made at the start, it would. After the last two days, it really doesn't. There was plenty of time to talk of shorthand.
In addition, if I can be as meticulous as I am in saying "some" or "many" and using terms that people think appropriate in order to be respectful, I'm pretty sure others could be as meticulous.
In point of fact, it's really not that difficult. But, I suppose, it might go to viewpoint.
saying 'science' when what you might be really talking about 'biology, physics or math' is a version of it."
Question ....
Let's pretend I started talking about something. Let's say I was trying to make a point. Let's say I kept saying "science" over and over again.
Let's say someone, Gary or Hazel or some science person, said, "You know, Shannon, you're really talking about physics. I would be best to reference it as physics and this is why...."
What do you think I'd do at that moment?
I'd change terms, right?
Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior, I'd change terms. Kind of like I started using the term "non-believer" instead of atheist. Right?
Now, imagine this ....
Imagine I said the Ingersoll quote was a great representation of the relationship between religion and science.
Imagine you said, "Really? All religions? Are you sure? In point of fact, no."
Back and forth ... leading you to ask me to give examples.
Me? I'd choose not to give you examples, evidence ... and ... I'd keep saying it over and over. No, no really. When you think about it, all religion, at some point, tried to kill science.
Imagine you, again, trying to explain why that's not accurate. It's not historically accurate. You say so and give examples, even including a cite. You talk about the injustice of it, branding all people as one ... claiming that all religions tried to kill science .... Let's say you even spoke to me about making people invisible. When one doesn't acknowledge the difference between people and religions, either one is saying they're exactly the same, which isn't just, or one is diminishing, devaluing, certain people.
Imagine saying that to me .... If you said that to me, what do you think I'd do?
Hmmm...?
At this point, two days later, I'm thinking, now, arguing that it's simple shorthand doesn't mean much to me. If that comment had been made at the start, it would. After the last two days, it really doesn't. There was plenty of time to talk of shorthand.
In addition, if I can be as meticulous as I am in saying "some" or "many" and using terms that people think appropriate in order to be respectful, I'm pretty sure others could be as meticulous.
In point of fact, it's really not that difficult. But, I suppose, it might go to viewpoint.
Travis wrote: "again, you are attributing deliberate-ness of intent where can be seen in many cases, either a rush of thinking/typing or a version of shorthand.
but you tend to take every mis-used group 'you', general comment or person getting jumbled while trying to reply to a multitude of thoughts/posts as a personal slight or that you must step up and be the spokes person for the believers.
If a comment doesn't apply to you, then it's okay to shrug it off rather than make sure we know it doesn't.
Not ever dumb comment needs a reply and not every poster who wanders off is doing it to snub you.
and please stop using chris as an example, after the gay marriage debate, I'm through with him and I'm just going to react negatively if he's part of your argument. "
Again, after arguing the fact that all religions have tried to kill science, followed by it's a metaphor and the truth, for two days ... talk of shorthand and mistakes doesn't really hold a lot of water.
Next, .... While it's your right to say what you've said here, I think it's inappropriate.
I made a clear and logical argument. Instead of dealing with the points I've made, you've made the above statements. You might not intend this or realize this, but it could be read as your diminishing my argument and me. I don't treat you or anyone else here that way. I don't expect that treatment from you or anyone else.
Though, may I say, the above is tame compared to some of the things others have said. After all, you didn't ask me, the token Indian, if I'm drunk when I post, which has to be the most offensive thing anyone has said to me. So, really, in comparison, we're good.
My suggestion, which isn't unreasonable, is that people address me when they address me. I've said that about 15 times, but it seems I need to say it again.
Instead of coming at me with arguments that worked with the other theists who argue other points, come at me with arguments that actually make sense with regard to what I've actually said and regarding who I actually am. That would be nice.
Further, instead of posting a direct response to me, addressed to me, that says something like ... Why would you need a holy book if you this and if you that and you this and you that and aren't you giving tacit approval to the bad things that religions do ... I'd really appreciate it if someone took the extra 2 seconds to say ... I know you don't do this but why do you think someone would ....
Shannon takes all the "you" references personally. So emotional, is Shannon. The token woman believer on this thread.
If someone addresses a post to me that says you, I'm going to assume they mean me. If they don't mean me, it would be wise to make that evident. I'm not overly emotional for asking that.
So ....
Again, as has come up before, we tend to have problems when people don't address the people making statements here. People like to be treated and responded to in a way that makes sense regarding who they are and what they stand for. Asking for that isn't too much.
It sort of/kind of goes along with the idea that we work together naturally and try to do good naturally, without the need for religion to tell us to do so. Doesn't it.
So, given the fact that the two of us both believe morality can be found within and without religion, let's prove that point.
Regarding cHriS ....
I'm torn.
First, I'll call it .... Regardless of his views on mothers and gay marriage, views I don't agree with, there's more than a bit of hypocrisy here. More than a bit. If you guys can argue with him about truth and the fact that, if he says something over and over ... it doesn't become true ... then, turn round and the same darned thing, .... Well, I've got to say ... I think that stinks.
Second, .... When was the last time I asked you to stop saying something because it was wrong or unjust or ... and you stopped? Hmmm...? When?
But, you know what.... Since you're so bothered by my mentioning his name, I won't mention his name to you again.
I'll respect your request.
The truth stands on its own.
but you tend to take every mis-used group 'you', general comment or person getting jumbled while trying to reply to a multitude of thoughts/posts as a personal slight or that you must step up and be the spokes person for the believers.
If a comment doesn't apply to you, then it's okay to shrug it off rather than make sure we know it doesn't.
Not ever dumb comment needs a reply and not every poster who wanders off is doing it to snub you.
and please stop using chris as an example, after the gay marriage debate, I'm through with him and I'm just going to react negatively if he's part of your argument. "
Again, after arguing the fact that all religions have tried to kill science, followed by it's a metaphor and the truth, for two days ... talk of shorthand and mistakes doesn't really hold a lot of water.
Next, .... While it's your right to say what you've said here, I think it's inappropriate.
I made a clear and logical argument. Instead of dealing with the points I've made, you've made the above statements. You might not intend this or realize this, but it could be read as your diminishing my argument and me. I don't treat you or anyone else here that way. I don't expect that treatment from you or anyone else.
Though, may I say, the above is tame compared to some of the things others have said. After all, you didn't ask me, the token Indian, if I'm drunk when I post, which has to be the most offensive thing anyone has said to me. So, really, in comparison, we're good.
My suggestion, which isn't unreasonable, is that people address me when they address me. I've said that about 15 times, but it seems I need to say it again.
Instead of coming at me with arguments that worked with the other theists who argue other points, come at me with arguments that actually make sense with regard to what I've actually said and regarding who I actually am. That would be nice.
Further, instead of posting a direct response to me, addressed to me, that says something like ... Why would you need a holy book if you this and if you that and you this and you that and aren't you giving tacit approval to the bad things that religions do ... I'd really appreciate it if someone took the extra 2 seconds to say ... I know you don't do this but why do you think someone would ....
Shannon takes all the "you" references personally. So emotional, is Shannon. The token woman believer on this thread.
If someone addresses a post to me that says you, I'm going to assume they mean me. If they don't mean me, it would be wise to make that evident. I'm not overly emotional for asking that.
So ....
Again, as has come up before, we tend to have problems when people don't address the people making statements here. People like to be treated and responded to in a way that makes sense regarding who they are and what they stand for. Asking for that isn't too much.
It sort of/kind of goes along with the idea that we work together naturally and try to do good naturally, without the need for religion to tell us to do so. Doesn't it.
So, given the fact that the two of us both believe morality can be found within and without religion, let's prove that point.
Regarding cHriS ....
I'm torn.
First, I'll call it .... Regardless of his views on mothers and gay marriage, views I don't agree with, there's more than a bit of hypocrisy here. More than a bit. If you guys can argue with him about truth and the fact that, if he says something over and over ... it doesn't become true ... then, turn round and the same darned thing, .... Well, I've got to say ... I think that stinks.
Second, .... When was the last time I asked you to stop saying something because it was wrong or unjust or ... and you stopped? Hmmm...? When?
But, you know what.... Since you're so bothered by my mentioning his name, I won't mention his name to you again.
I'll respect your request.
The truth stands on its own.
The other thing I forgot to mention with Muslims is, what we see on television are fundamentalist groups. My former math teacher (another Turkish Muslim) explained to me that people like Osama bin Laden and other extremists are the Fred Phelps of the Muslim world. I know there are plenty of Christian people who accept science openly; I would not lump them in with those who will argue the differences between macro and micro evolution without listening to the fact that they are one and the same, just as I wouldn't lump fundamentalist Muslims with those who scream about the evils of the Western world.
Heather wrote: "The other thing I forgot to mention with Muslims is, what we see on television are fundamentalist groups. My former math teacher (another Turkish Muslim) explained to me that people like Osama bin ..."
Extremism is found in many groups, religious and secular; extremism is found within certain individuals. Moderation and liberal views can also be found in many groups and individuals, religious or otherwise.
I agree.
Extremism is found in many groups, religious and secular; extremism is found within certain individuals. Moderation and liberal views can also be found in many groups and individuals, religious or otherwise.
I agree.
Heather wrote: "The other thing I forgot to mention with Muslims is, what we see on television are fundamentalist groups. My former math teacher (another Turkish Muslim) explained to me that people like Osama bin ..."Unfortunately, it's the loud crazies that get all the press and can make any group look bad.
The reasonable people have to then work twice as hard.
As an atheist, I'm stuck with Bill Mahr. So, I can sympathize.
Travis wrote: "Heather wrote: "The other thing I forgot to mention with Muslims is, what we see on television are fundamentalist groups. My former math teacher (another Turkish Muslim) explained to me that people..."I'm an agnostic, and haven't really met too many extremists out there (although I don't doubt their existence). I just went to my local skeptics meeting and we went into logical fallacy; unfortunately, ethnocentric fallacy seems to be the easiest one for people with strong feelings about something to get sucked into.
So Shannon "Why do non-believers believe such things, argue till blue in the face often times even when given evidence to suggest otherwise, and support untruths?"
in a post complaining about generalizations and how you never do it... with Travis who patently not doing it...
You want to know why I walk away from this, frankly Shannon you(specific) are hard work.
Firstly I find I spend half my post explaining how an obvious general "you" is not a specific you... to you while you complain that I'm not talking to them but you and when did "You" say such thing, when it an obvious general you...
Secondly you don't let anything go you're still complaining about the romans writing everything down and the the freaking war thing despite everyone apologising and agreeing to one degree or another and accepting it... pages ago...
Thirdly the petulant "Hmmm"'s "Question"'s and "Note to self",'s seriously would you cop a student using a tone like that in a conversation
Fourthly I'm sick of the Shannon taking everything personally show and the endless complaints until someone apologises.
Fifthly I have a life outside my computer.
Shanna wrote: "You want to know why I walk away from this, frankly Shannon you(specific) are hard work.
Firstly I find I spend half my post explaining how an obvious general "you" is not a specific you... to you while you complain that I'm not talking to them but you and when did "You" say such thing, when it an obvious general you...
Secondly you don't let anything go you're still complaining about the romans writing everything down and the the freaking war thing despite everyone apologising and agreeing to one degree or another and accepting it... pages ago...
Thirdly the petulant "Hmmm"'s "Question"'s and "Note to self",'s seriously would you cop a student using a tone like that in a conversation
Fourthly I'm sick of the Shannon taking everything personally show and the endless complaints until someone apologises.
Fifthly I have a life outside my computer. "
And, yet ....
You've answered nothing.
So, ultimately, it's not really hard work, is it? It's not really about having to answer any hard questions.
Why would you believe Romans wrote down everything and promote such to be true?
You didn't answer that, just like you didn't answer me when I asked about Boudicca, etc... a month or two ago.
A couple points....
I don't doubt that I'm hard work. I ask questions here and hold people to the standards they hold others to. That can be hard. I know. I've been asked questions and have been held to a standard. It can be hard.
Regarding the "obvious yous..." How have they been obvious, exactly? Hey, Travis didn't even argue that they were obvious, or did he? I thought it was about posting late at night and being tired. Interestingly, you even apologized to me for the "you" thing a bit ago and said you could see how .... But, hey, maybe you didn't mean it when you apologized and said you could see how .... How am I or anyone, when someone posts directly to us, makes statements directly to us, deals with things we've said, specifically, and asks questions along the "you" line ... how are we to know that's the "universal" and not directed toward us? By the way, I don't do that. A lot of people don't do that. So, is the problem with me for asking it not be done? That people be just a little mindful? Or, is the problem with lack of mindfulness? Yeah, it might be hard work, but then.... There's all this research that says we, as mammals, try really hard to be nice to one another and work together ... without religion telling us to do so.
War ... and not letting that go. When did someone apologize? No one apologized. It went like this ... Let's never talk about it again. Was that an apology? It went like ... Travis, every time I mentioned, politely, to all of the new posters who continued to make that false statement, saying some version of ... stop talking about it ... Yup. Leave the lie to stand. Over and over. Stop talking! Even talking about my having better response time than 911. Yeah.... So, no, the above is a misrepresentation.
Coping an attitude.... Maybe. Probably. But, I haven't called people stupid sheep or ignorant or arrogant or drunks .... I've tried to be respectful by not capitalizing "atheist" by using non-believers by .... If the worst thing I've said is ... "hmmm..." and "question" and "note to self" ... well, holy hannah, what a jerk I am. Right?
Regarding taking things personally and apologies ....
You know what I'd like.
I'd like people to be honest.
I'd like the hypocrisy to end.
That's what I'd like.
And, yeah, I also have a life outside my computer.
Do you truly think, by attempting to make this about me and what a petulant child I supposedly am, people don't see the truth?
Questions left unanswered.
And, ... you're doing exactly what non-believers have been disgusted by coming from some believers .... Personal attack when one doesn't have a sufficient argument.
Hard work, yeah.... I agree with that.
If this is so hard, you might want to keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to ask someone else some hard questions and expect them to answer thoughtfully and honestly.
Firstly I find I spend half my post explaining how an obvious general "you" is not a specific you... to you while you complain that I'm not talking to them but you and when did "You" say such thing, when it an obvious general you...
Secondly you don't let anything go you're still complaining about the romans writing everything down and the the freaking war thing despite everyone apologising and agreeing to one degree or another and accepting it... pages ago...
Thirdly the petulant "Hmmm"'s "Question"'s and "Note to self",'s seriously would you cop a student using a tone like that in a conversation
Fourthly I'm sick of the Shannon taking everything personally show and the endless complaints until someone apologises.
Fifthly I have a life outside my computer. "
And, yet ....
You've answered nothing.
So, ultimately, it's not really hard work, is it? It's not really about having to answer any hard questions.
Why would you believe Romans wrote down everything and promote such to be true?
You didn't answer that, just like you didn't answer me when I asked about Boudicca, etc... a month or two ago.
A couple points....
I don't doubt that I'm hard work. I ask questions here and hold people to the standards they hold others to. That can be hard. I know. I've been asked questions and have been held to a standard. It can be hard.
Regarding the "obvious yous..." How have they been obvious, exactly? Hey, Travis didn't even argue that they were obvious, or did he? I thought it was about posting late at night and being tired. Interestingly, you even apologized to me for the "you" thing a bit ago and said you could see how .... But, hey, maybe you didn't mean it when you apologized and said you could see how .... How am I or anyone, when someone posts directly to us, makes statements directly to us, deals with things we've said, specifically, and asks questions along the "you" line ... how are we to know that's the "universal" and not directed toward us? By the way, I don't do that. A lot of people don't do that. So, is the problem with me for asking it not be done? That people be just a little mindful? Or, is the problem with lack of mindfulness? Yeah, it might be hard work, but then.... There's all this research that says we, as mammals, try really hard to be nice to one another and work together ... without religion telling us to do so.
War ... and not letting that go. When did someone apologize? No one apologized. It went like this ... Let's never talk about it again. Was that an apology? It went like ... Travis, every time I mentioned, politely, to all of the new posters who continued to make that false statement, saying some version of ... stop talking about it ... Yup. Leave the lie to stand. Over and over. Stop talking! Even talking about my having better response time than 911. Yeah.... So, no, the above is a misrepresentation.
Coping an attitude.... Maybe. Probably. But, I haven't called people stupid sheep or ignorant or arrogant or drunks .... I've tried to be respectful by not capitalizing "atheist" by using non-believers by .... If the worst thing I've said is ... "hmmm..." and "question" and "note to self" ... well, holy hannah, what a jerk I am. Right?
Regarding taking things personally and apologies ....
You know what I'd like.
I'd like people to be honest.
I'd like the hypocrisy to end.
That's what I'd like.
And, yeah, I also have a life outside my computer.
Do you truly think, by attempting to make this about me and what a petulant child I supposedly am, people don't see the truth?
Questions left unanswered.
And, ... you're doing exactly what non-believers have been disgusted by coming from some believers .... Personal attack when one doesn't have a sufficient argument.
Hard work, yeah.... I agree with that.
If this is so hard, you might want to keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to ask someone else some hard questions and expect them to answer thoughtfully and honestly.
Shannon I have answered your questions, and if I missed them and you pointed them out I answered them then. Sorry if you didn't like the answer.The Boudicca thing happened at a bad time My BIL died interstate and my particpation was scattered at best, let it go, this is precisely what I'm talking about. My assertion was wrong (or perhaps not, there must have been some sort of record the, which ever historian it was, had to write the documentation we now have today, when he wrote his 50 years later or do you think he just pulled it out his butt...) but the fact that it's still stuck in your craw months later, jesus christ woman let it go...
Shannon, read the recent posts from Travis he's said the same things, I summarized bluntly, with kid gloves.
You want the hypocrisy to end you can only start with yourself, stop berating people for it and the committing in your next sentence...
The jerk you're being is not the honest kind, I'd prefer someone to name call, than this passive aggressive crap you pull with a holier than thou attitude. People conceded the point, that is enough, the fact that you are still complaining that poor Shannon still didn't get an apology (despite the fact that in subsequent assertions from new posters (some)non-believers have been presenting your argument, sure evidence that your proofs have been taken on board and been permitted to change an opinion which you assured us never happened Why do non-believers believe such things, argue till blue in the face often times even when given evidence to suggest otherwise, and support untruths?") clearly demonstrates the petulant child
I'm not making a personal attack in lieu of an argument, THIS is my point and only point in these posts. I'm irritated that this thread has devolved in to the "Shannon takes it personally" show, "Shannon has personal gripe because not everyone agrees with her show" and "Shannon has appointed herself the ajudicator of this thread and is going to fill pages and pages with complaints about her questions not being answered to her satisfaction" And "Shannon feels like she being told to shut up and stand in a corner show"
Your response only demonstrates my point...
Shanna wrote: "there must have been some sort of record the, which ever historian it was, had to write the documentation we now have today, when he wrote his 50 years later or do you think he just pulled it out his butt..."
Does that argument also work for the people who wrote about Jesus and his teachings 50 plus years later?
Does that argument also work for the people who wrote about Jesus and his teachings 50 plus years later?
Shanna wrote: "I'm not making a personal attack in lieu of an argument, THIS is my point and only point in these posts. I'm irritated that is thread has devolved in to the "Shannon takes it personally" show, "Shannon has personal gripe because not everyone agrees with her show" and "Shannon has appointed herself the ajudicator of this thread and is going to fill pages and pages with complaints about her questions not being answered to her satisfaction" And "Shannon feels like she being told to shut up and stand in a corner show" "
Versus ....
Shannon expects people to hold themselves to the same standard by which they hold others.
To answer questions, to answer them honestly, and to not make personal attacks when they don't want to answer why they believed things to be true which weren't.
Though, you know ....
I've come to a realization.
I should step away from this thread. And, when I say it, I'll do it. Why? As long as I remain, people who hold others to one standard and themselves to a different standard will blame me for the hypocrisy. It will never be about the truth. It will only be about "Shannon, the baby" who is a drunkard Indian and a wee bit too emotional.
What's the saying ....? The truth will out. Perhaps it's time to allow truth free reign here.
Versus ....
Shannon expects people to hold themselves to the same standard by which they hold others.
To answer questions, to answer them honestly, and to not make personal attacks when they don't want to answer why they believed things to be true which weren't.
Though, you know ....
I've come to a realization.
I should step away from this thread. And, when I say it, I'll do it. Why? As long as I remain, people who hold others to one standard and themselves to a different standard will blame me for the hypocrisy. It will never be about the truth. It will only be about "Shannon, the baby" who is a drunkard Indian and a wee bit too emotional.
What's the saying ....? The truth will out. Perhaps it's time to allow truth free reign here.
Shannon expects people to hold themselves to the same standard by which they hold others.To answer questions, to answer them honestly, and to not make personal attacks when they don't want to answer why they believed things to be true which weren't
Which I have, when my life permits, if you don't like the answers, what do you want me to do?
It will only be about "Shannon, the baby" who is a drunkard Indian and a wee bit too emotional.
Really, complain about hypocrisy and then commit it. Don't project your issues with your ethnicity on to me, I have never even referenced it not once. Nor to my knowledge has anyone else derided you for it here, and if they had I would have jumped on them hard, not least because my sons via their father have native american ancestry. Be careful of the aspersions your casting Shannon.
Shanna wrote: " Nor to my knowledge has anyone else derided you for it here, and if they had I would have jumped on them hard"
Do you agree with this statement, Maria? Is Shanna accurate? Or, did you, one night, ask me if I'm drunk when I post? Something you've only asked of one person. Me. What say you? Are you going to tell Shanna what you said, what she must have missed, else she'd have jumped on it? I remember you saying it, Maria, and my reply. That I don't drink. I don't remember a response from you or jumping on the part of anyone else.
And, with that ... I'll let the truth come out as it will.
Do you agree with this statement, Maria? Is Shanna accurate? Or, did you, one night, ask me if I'm drunk when I post? Something you've only asked of one person. Me. What say you? Are you going to tell Shanna what you said, what she must have missed, else she'd have jumped on it? I remember you saying it, Maria, and my reply. That I don't drink. I don't remember a response from you or jumping on the part of anyone else.
And, with that ... I'll let the truth come out as it will.
I used to follow this thread for the insightful discussions between the believers and non-believers and the undecided. Now, it's time to leave and let y'all bicker.
Sorry editing belatedly realizing that none this was directed at me but Maria... Important here "to my knowledge"
Question
Did I witness Maria's deriding your ethnicity, you can prove this assertion? Post number please?
Shannon wrote: "Does that argument also work for the people who wrote about Jesus and his teachings 50 plus years later?"Just saw this
Sure, which version of the story and where is the corroborating independent evidence, you know the stuff which the Boudicean story has?
Shannon wrote: Regarding cHriS ....I'm torn.
First, I'll call it .... Regardless of his views on mothers and gay marriage, views I don't agree with, ..."
That's fine Shannon, that's what 'views' are, one persons point of view. That's why we debate things.
But 'debate' does not happen here very often. Travis and a few others are only interested in getting their view across even at the detriment of others. Elite atheists stalk threads like this because it becomes a game to them, a war of words, they have to prove something; but what?
They have to prove that in their scientific world there is no room for a creator, but they can only do this by unpicking someone else’s beliefs or convictions, and they do this quite well up to a point, it comes with practice and a few well remembered phrases like Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Russell's teapot. That gets rid of most of the newcomers, quick time, but for some reason and I’m not sure why, folks like me or you seem to stick around much longer.
They don’t understand ‘spirit’, it does not really have a place in science, and that can be an issue in debates like this one. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law can coincide, maybe it’s about time science woke up.
Regarding the ‘gay marriage’ and Travis……… he had to revert to emotive language and derogatory remarks because he was out of his comfort zone with regard to discussing this subject.
And in a previous thread to you he said,
“and please stop using chris as an example, after the gay marriage debate, I'm through with him and I'm just going to react negatively if he's part of your argument“.
More emotive language and derogatory remarks; again he is out of his comfort zone.
Maybe the ‘gay marriage’ debate is viewed differently in different countries, I don’t know. But in the uk we have civil partnerships and that does give equal rights, and gay couples have more rights that co habituating couples of either sex.
Christopher Biggins is a very well known celebrity who is gay, and his opinion is the same as mine, so I guess Travis would have issues with him as well.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/bigg...
Shanna wrote: “not least because my sons via their father have native american ancestry. Be careful of the aspersions your casting Shannon”.
Shanna, you do quite often pick me up on quite random points while I am making my point to someone else. Nothing wrong with that, so can I do the same here.
Is that not a bit like saying having black friends negates any racist thing you say.
I wasn't going to comment about this nonsense, but since I was personally called out:Shannon said: Do you agree with this statement, Maria? Is Shanna accurate? Or, did you, one night, ask me if I'm drunk when I post? Something you've only asked of one person. Me. What say you? Are you going to tell Shanna what you said, what she must have missed, else she'd have jumped on it? I remember you saying it, Maria, and my reply. That I don't drink. I don't remember a response from you or jumping on the part of anyone else."
Shannon, I don't think Shanna or anyone else cares what I said months ago.
Whatever it was you were posting about at the time made no sense to me so I asked that in a sarcastic way the same way I'd say to someone "are you crazy"? I would have made a similar comment to anyone who I thought at the time was making no sense.
I don't know you at all, don't know (or care) what your ancestry or ethnicity is. What that has to do with me asking if you'd been drinking is beyond me.
If you are still offended by my comment, then I apologize to you (as has pretty much everyone on this board).
Also, I find it amusing, if not sad, that you would bring up (let alone even remember) what I (some unknown person on an internet forum) said to/about you months ago. I could see if it was a family member, acquaintance or colleague - but why do you care so much what I (or any of the commenters here) say or think of you? What difference could it possibly make in your life?
cHriS Wrote:" Shanna wrote: “not least because my sons via their father have native american ancestry. Be careful of the aspersions your casting Shannon”.Shanna, you do quite often pick me up on quite random points while I am making my point to someone else. Nothing wrong with that, so can I do the same here.
Is that not a bit like saying having black friends negates any racist thing you say.
True it could be taken that way, but then I didn't say anything racist...
Shannon projected her issues on to me.
I was merely attempting to give Shannon pause, before starting on poor little Indian me tangent, and demonstrate I'll have no truck with that, it has not been an issue here and I'll not have her conflating it, unchallenged, to be one because she would like to feel more justified in her self perceived victimisation...
I've been on this board for a LONG time, conversing with Shannon for quite a bit of that time. Until this recent exchange, I never knew,thought about, or cared what nationality or race she is. She brought it up herself, why I don't know...
Maria wrote: "I wasn't going to comment about this nonsense, but since I was personally called out:Shannon said: Do you agree with this statement, Maria? Is Shanna accurate? Or, did you, one night, ask me if ..."
Waitaminute...!
You just made a drinking remark and she jumped to the indian part...?
Think i may need a break from this thread too.
cHriS wrote: "They have to prove that in their scientific world there is no room for a creator"I'd phrase it more as "no need". There is room if there is evidence, without it there is simply no need to postulate a creator.
cHriS wrote: "..few well remembered phrases like Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Russell's teapot."
But both are valid points, the FSM in particular, whatever it has since become, was a very valid point in the creationism in schools debate.
cHriS wrote: "Regarding the ‘gay marriage’ and Travis……… he had to revert to emotive language and derogatory remarks because he was out of his comfort zone with regard to discussing this subject. "
I'm sorry, but Travis was no more guilty of 'emotive language' than you yourself.
cHriS wrote: "Christopher Biggins is a very well known celebrity who is gay, and his opinion is the same as mine, so I guess Travis would have issues with him as well."
I think I can safely say this is the first time I've seen Christopher Biggins brought into a discussion such as this. At the end of the day it's an appeal to authority though, there is still no valid reason or evidence to support denying the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples.
cHriS wrote: "Is that not a bit like saying having black friends negates any racist thing you say. "
And similarly for knowing gay people and homophobia.
Btw, I have only been keeping half an eye on the current discussion, so I'm not getting involved, that should not be interpreted as taking sides, not taking sides, not holding people to standards or so on.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0...I can't believe the race card has been pulled in a conversation where it hasn't been mentioned at all, and where no-one actually gives a fuck what race anyone else is... well, except one person, obviously. This has hit an all time low. Bored now, see you guys later.
Hazel wrote: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0...
I can't believe the race card has been pulled in a conversation where it hasn't been mentioned at all, and where no-one actually gives a fuck what race a..."
I actually think you should thank me, Hazel....
Now, instead of answering questions (instead of just asking them) and telling everyone why you've believed things that aren't true and have promoted them as true and as valid reasons to turn from one's faith, you can talk about my bringing this thread to an all time low.
You know ... I remember this happening one other time ... some of the same players accusing someone of ruining the fun of the thread for everyone else. You know ... the guy from India.
Clearly, it's working well for you. Maybe no one will notice.
And, now ... it will be about how I came back when I said I wouldn't. So, now, I'll have to stop reading.
Funny thing ....
Tacit approval.
You know how you and others have gone on before about my giving tacit approval to the evils of religion. Gary really did; no universal you there.
Do you think being an active member of a thread and watching bad acts is giving tacit approval to such bad acts?
Though, perhaps that's more for Shanna, as well.
So, I'm the one on the high horse who is the self-appointed moderator. Okay. Does that mean the people who remain silent are the ones who give tacit approval for bulls**t and, sometimes, nasty behavior?
You see, that's the thing about me and tacit approval. I don't give it when faced with bad behavior. Therefore, ... I need to leave ... else I'll be seen as the jerk on the horse. And, ... no one will have to deal with the bad behavior.
This time, I won't keep reading and won't be tempted to post. I was just so inspired by all of the natural morality that shines through here that I couldn't fight the temptation to comment upon it.
I can't believe the race card has been pulled in a conversation where it hasn't been mentioned at all, and where no-one actually gives a fuck what race a..."
I actually think you should thank me, Hazel....
Now, instead of answering questions (instead of just asking them) and telling everyone why you've believed things that aren't true and have promoted them as true and as valid reasons to turn from one's faith, you can talk about my bringing this thread to an all time low.
You know ... I remember this happening one other time ... some of the same players accusing someone of ruining the fun of the thread for everyone else. You know ... the guy from India.
Clearly, it's working well for you. Maybe no one will notice.
And, now ... it will be about how I came back when I said I wouldn't. So, now, I'll have to stop reading.
Funny thing ....
Tacit approval.
You know how you and others have gone on before about my giving tacit approval to the evils of religion. Gary really did; no universal you there.
Do you think being an active member of a thread and watching bad acts is giving tacit approval to such bad acts?
Though, perhaps that's more for Shanna, as well.
So, I'm the one on the high horse who is the self-appointed moderator. Okay. Does that mean the people who remain silent are the ones who give tacit approval for bulls**t and, sometimes, nasty behavior?
You see, that's the thing about me and tacit approval. I don't give it when faced with bad behavior. Therefore, ... I need to leave ... else I'll be seen as the jerk on the horse. And, ... no one will have to deal with the bad behavior.
This time, I won't keep reading and won't be tempted to post. I was just so inspired by all of the natural morality that shines through here that I couldn't fight the temptation to comment upon it.
Though, perhaps that's more for Shanna, as well.So, I'm the one on the high horse who is the self-appointed moderator. Okay. Does that mean the people who remain silent are the ones who give tacit approval for bulls**t and, sometimes, nasty behavior?
You see, that's the thing about me and tacit approval. I don't give it when faced with bad behavior. Therefore, ... I need to leave ... else I'll be seen as the jerk on the horse. And, ... no one will have to deal with the bad behavior.
This time, I won't keep reading and won't be tempted to post. I was just so inspired by all of the natural morality that shines through here that I couldn't fight the temptation to comment upon it.
There is only one badly behaved person at the moment Shannon... but by all means if it makes you feel better keep your high horse.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waa...