Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on June 04, 2016, 02:11:43 PM
-
Given that there are people who want religion banned from cinemas, adverts, places of education, hospitals, social work, politics street evangelism what would people allow in terms of public religion?
-
Given that there are people who want religion banned from cinemas, adverts, places of education, hospitals, social work, politics street evangelism what would people allow in terms of public religion?
Religion should not be forced down the throats of people who have no interest in it. Churches and other places of that nature are the places for religion.
As for forums of this nature, I join them so I can challenge the fundies/Biblical literalists. No none is forced to join a religious forum, so if you don't like it, you don't have to remain.
-
Religion should not be forced down the throats of people who have no interest in it. Churches and other places of that nature are the places for religion.
As for forums of this nature, I join them so I can challenge the fundies/Biblical literalists. No none is forced to join a religious forum, so if you don't like it, you don't have to remain.
I notice you have not voted. is this because you are afraid that your viewpoint will display a censorial attitude on your part?
-
If religion is allowed to advertise beyond times and places of services and events it should have to prove its claims. Otherwise it is misrepresentation, and making promises for its product it can't keep. It's mascara stuck on false eyelashes.
-
I notice you have not voted. is this because you are afraid that your viewpoint will display a censorial attitude on your part?
I have voted! I am not afraid of what people think about me!
-
I have voted! I am not afraid of what people think about me!
My apologies.
-
My apologies.
I graciously accept your apology. :D
-
Dear Vlad,
I voted, Yes, as full as any commercial product, in fact I going to start one of those Churches they have in the States, send me all yer money or your going straight to hell, could be worse, I could threaten them with Edinburgh :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
I think that religion (and its various organisations) should have the same kind of public forum as any other product in the marketplace. However, its adherents should not expect no special treatment or privilege nor should they receive any. As Rhiannon has suggested, religion should be subject to the same legal constraints as any other product.
-
I think that religion (and its various organisations) should have the same kind of public forum as any other product in the marketplace. However, its adherents should not expect no special treatment or privilege nor should they receive any. As Rhiannon has suggested, religion should be subject to the same legal constraints as any other product.
My position too, this would be fair to all.
ippy
-
Ask yersel.
What Would Jesus Want?
-
Dear Vlad,
I voted, Yes, as full as any commercial product, in fact I going to start one of those Churches they have in the States, send me all yer money or your going straight to hell, could be worse, I could threaten them with Edinburgh :o :o
Gonnagle.
I offer my services as a fund raiser/administrator for your church, for a small salary plus commission.
-
My position too, this would be fair to all.
ippy
Particularly if extended to the BHA and NSS, naturalism, Platonism, political parties as well.
-
Ask yersel.
What Would Jesus Want?
People whose attitudes and postings on this Forum do the religion of Christianity far more harm than good, brining it into serious disrepute by making statements that range from ludicrous to total nonsense to tge terminally unbelievable to SHUT UP.
-
Particularly if extended to the BHA and NSS, naturalism, Platonism, political parties as well.
You really have some difficulty understanding understanding Secular Humanism Vlad, how many times do you need to be reminded that the secular position is for a level playing field for all including Secular Humanism and no more privileges for the religious, just as the Secular Humanists are now and they continue as they do without any privileges.
There should always be freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
What's so difficult for you about the above where it never seems to sink in to your head and settle no matter how many times various people that post here keep on explaining this to you?
What is it with you religiosos Vlad, their's you never getting or showing any sign of being able to understand the principles of the secular world and Hope with his negative proof syndrome?
ippy
-
You really have some difficulty understanding understanding Secular Humanism Vlad, how many times do you need to be reminded that the secular position is for a level playing field for all including Secular Humanism and no more privileges for the religious, just as the Secular Humanists are now and they continue as they do without any privileges.
There should always be freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
What's so difficult for you about the above where it never seems to sink in to your head and settle no matter how many times various people that post here keep on explaining this to you?
What is it with you religiosos Vlad, their's you never getting or showing any sign of being able to understand the principles of the secular world and Hope with his negative proof syndrome?
ippy
But the trouble comes if my religion comes with brass bands and people in uniform doesn't it marching through the streets doing social work etc.
Where does that leave your idea of freedom from religion?
-
Re: Should religion have a public forum?
In which Trollboy fails to notice that "religion" already has a public forum - ie, the churches, temples etc in which it does its thing - while simultaneously deriding the very secularism that protects its right to do so, and failing to notice that what he's actually upset about is restraint on the unwarranted privileges that religion would arrogate to itself - teaching its faith beliefs as facts to children for example.
-
Religion should not be forced down the throats of people who have no interest in it. Churches and other places of that nature are the places for religion.
As for forums of this nature, I join them so I can challenge the fundies/Biblical literalists. No none is forced to join a religious forum, so if you don't like it, you don't have to remain.
Just as your constant moaning should not be forced down the throats of Christians and Atheists alike.
You don't challenge anything or anyone.
a) you haven't the knowledge to challenge Christianity.
b) you weren't forced to join this forum.
Being a member of a forum is not the issue. Taking place in debates is not the issue.
But you take the biscuit when you have no arguments to offer in debates on this forum. Just moan and complain.
-
Ask yersel.
What Would Jesus Want?
He already has it....
ME... and of course all those others who choose to believe.
Ask yersel.
What don't you have?
-
Sassy,
But you take the biscuit when you have no arguments to offer in debates on this forum. Just moan and complain.
For the avoidance of doubt, are you – Sassy – actually accusing someone else of having "no arguments" and of being here just to "moan and complain"?
Someone else?????????!!!!!!!!!
Wow!
-
Just as your constant moaning should not be forced down the throats of Christians and Atheists alike.
You don't challenge anything or anyone.
a) you haven't the knowledge to challenge Christianity.
b) you weren't forced to join this forum.
Being a member of a forum is not the issue. Taking place in debates is not the issue.
But you take the biscuit when you have no arguments to offer in debates on this forum. Just moan and complain.
Oh Sass, to give you your due you are HILARIOUS. Of course you NEVER moan and complain about us wicked non believers, do you? :D :D :D
-
Not sure that any of the poll options have a great deal of bearing on a 'public forum'. The idea of a 'public forum' is so much wider than the parameters laid out in the poll. I have therefore not voted.
-
Religion should not be forced down the throats of people who have no interest in it. Churches and other places of that nature are the places for religion.
Would you put the same limitations on politics (ie, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, The Senydd, Holyrood and the Parliament Buildings,in Cardiff/Edinburgh/Belfast; the offices of various levels of political representation; etc); or sport - the stadia and arenas in which they take place?
Incidentally, whilst the term 'church' does mean a specific building, it also means 'a local body of believers' - a meaning that long predates thae 'building' meaning. As such, the church is no less part and parcel of society than any other group of people.
-
But the trouble comes if my religion comes with brass bands and people in uniform doesn't it marching through the streets doing social work etc.
Where does that leave your idea of freedom from religion?
You are showing how ignorant you are of the principles of Secularism again Vlad, The Sally Army brass bands are a delight to hear I have no objection to any brass band whether it's a religion membership based band or not, we have just filled up another old clothes bag for the S A to collect and good luck to them.
What it is the various religions have had their privileges for such a long time that religious people like you no longer see them as the privileges that they most certainly are, and as soon as anyone makes mention of any one of the many privileges religions that they have managed to acquire over the many years, we get the religious equivalent of the stuck pig syndrome, "oh these evil secularists are persecuting us, we can't let them get away with that".
We managed to do away with the stupid blasphemy laws, not that long ago, oh the crying and wailing about that, the latest crying and wailing is about privileged school transport for your lot, well bugger you and your religious privileges get used to it we secularists will be gnawing at this bone until it is in fact a level playing field for all, no matter how long it takes.
Just in case it still hasn't sunk into your head Vlad, that means a level playing field, no privileges for all including any, not just secularism, any non-religious organization as well.
I find it difficult to understand why you can't get it, secularism, it's very plain and straightforward.
Nobody I know wants to stop religious people doing whatever it is they wish to do when practicing their various religions, nor do I.
ippy
-
Would you put the same limitations on politics (ie, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, The Senydd, Holyrood and the Parliament Buildings,in Cardiff/Edinburgh/Belfast; the offices of various levels of political representation; etc); or sport - the stadia and arenas in which they take place?
Incidentally, whilst the term 'church' does mean a specific building, it also means 'a local body of believers' - a meaning that long predates thae 'building' meaning. As such, the church is no less part and parcel of society than any other group of people.
Religion and politics are very different. Politicians are expected to prove their assertions have evidence to back them up, whereas there is none to support any religious faith.
-
If religion is allowed to advertise beyond times and places of services and events it should have to prove its claims. Otherwise it is misrepresentation, and making promises for its product it can't keep. It's mascara stuck on false eyelashes.
Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries. Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals. Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.
-
Religion and politics are very different. Politicians are expected to prove their assertions have evidence to back them up, whereas there is none to support any religious faith.
Sorry, as i've mentioned many times, and just reiterated in my last post to Rhi, there have been a number of articles written - for instance, in the medical area - that have provided evidence of the sort you want but have been rejected because they go beyond the purely scientific.
-
Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.
Bet we're not going to hear about them here though ;)
-
Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.
Details please.
Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals.
Details please.
Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.
Details please.
-
In which Trollboy fails to notice that "religion" already has a public forum - ie, the churches, temples etc in which it does its thing - while simultaneously deriding the very secularism that protects its right to do so, and failing to notice that what he's actually upset about is restraint on the unwarranted privileges that religion would arrogate to itself - teaching its faith beliefs as facts to children for example.
Two posters have registered on the poll that religion should not have a public forum.
I havent failed in the respect you state since I included such a category in the poll. Hardly failing in noticing.
Hillside however is interested in personal abuse, and putting thoughts and words which aren't mine. Still, no doubt that kind of thing appeals to his fans and his penchant for silly mindgames.
Again a slack application of moderation allows him and his claque to go around and do this sort of thing
-
Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries. Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals. Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.
Mmm misunderstanding of proof v evidence here shows your ignorance and therefore means that the post isn't even wrong.
-
Mmm misunderstanding of proof v evidence here shows your ignorance and therefore means that the post isn't even wrong.
Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'. In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence. Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.
-
Oh and of course offering claims without offering a methodology to support them despite many times being asked for it.
So once again Hope what is your methodology for supernatural claims? No methodology, no valid claim.
-
Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'. In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence. Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.
And wrong and wronger
You really don't have a clue about this stuff.
Proof is contextual. And you are using it in different contextual meanings here. Since you don't show any awareness of this, I presume it's ignorance rather than disingenuousness
-
Details please.
Details please.
Details please.
Reckon you'll just have to 'hope' for it as usual, Gord ;)
-
Two posters have registered on the poll that religion should not have a public forum.
I havent failed in the respect you state since I included such a category in the poll. Hardly failing in noticing.
Hillside however is interested in personal abuse, and putting thoughts and words which aren't mine. Still, no doubt that kind of thing appeals to his fans and his penchant for silly mindgames.
Again a slack application of moderation allows him and his claque to go around and do this sort of thing
Well Vlad, perhaps these two posters should have said that religion shouldn't have any kind of privileged position in or on any public forum.
ippy
-
Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'. In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence. Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.
Prevarication.
It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.
Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.
-
Religion and politics are very different. Politicians are expected to prove their assertions have evidence to back them up, whereas there is none to support any religious faith.
Not strictly true since sociolgy and social science are not exact and politics is also an arena for competing moral positions hence the validity of religion in politics.
We are not in a very religious zone in the UK of England. That's really, apart from some strange and wonderful interludes how it has always been......source J.Paxman.
-
Not sure that any of the poll options have a great deal of bearing on a 'public forum'. The idea of a 'public forum' is so much wider than the parameters laid out in the poll. I have therefore not voted.
That can be corrected taking your point into account.
-
Prevarication.
It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.
Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.
.....that would make another frequent descent around here
descent into fallacies, descent into shite moderation.....the list just goes on and on.
-
Reckon you'll just have to 'hope' for it as usual, Gord ;)
You're right Shakes, maybe Hope hasn't got an answer?
I take it you do know Hope has posted this proof some time ago and it was ignored or was it dismissed, he probably posted it before this forum was set up and we missed it? It's hot today I've been doing the garden, pehapss ill ave antre bere.
ippy
-
Well Vlad, perhaps these two posters should have said that religion shouldn't have any kind of privileged position in or on any public forum.
ippy
yeh..but they opted for a decisive ''no public forum.''
-
Prevarication.
No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so.
It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.
I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.
Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.
It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.
-
I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.
Jackanory ...
It's not that I descend into fallacies ...
But it is.
That's exactly what it is.
You either don't understand the fallacies that you continually commit, or you don't care.
Either way, they're still fallacies.
-
.....that would make another frequent descent around here
descent into fallacies, descent into shite moderation.....the list just goes on and on.
. In what way is a direct answer to your post 'shite moderation'. It isn't any form of moderation so why dishonestly throw that at a poster posting in a personal fashion?
Log off, give yourself a good shake, and stop painting yourself into this dull corner.
-
No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so.
Wrong.
I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.
Well do so again for crying out loud.
It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.
Superb! Right on cue up pops another straw man.
-
No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so.
I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.
It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.
Show that they exist. Come up with a methodology.
And I forgive your lying about me.
-
In which Trollboy fails ....................... to notice that what he's actually upset about is restraint on the unwarranted privileges that religion would arrogate to itself - teaching its faith beliefs as facts to children for example.
Yes Hillside but two people want No public forum for religion.......so what kind of ''restraint'' of religion are we talking about here.....Given the revelation that there are a couple of closet totalitarians around here (see poll )?
-
. In what way is a direct answer to your post 'shite moderation'. It isn't any form of moderation so why dishonestly throw that at a poster posting in a personal fashion?
Log off, give yourself a good shake, and stop painting yourself into this dull corner.
What are you on about?
-
Yes Hillside but two people want No public forum for religion.......so what kind of ''restraint'' of religion are we talking about here.....Given the revelation that there are a couple of closet totalitarians around here (see poll )?
Have you considered, Vlad, that some might be voting tactically as to annoy you or that they aren't taking your poll seriously?
-
Have you considered, Vlad, that some might be voting tactically as to annoy you or that they aren't taking your poll seriously?
Have you considered Gordon that you might be wishful thinking?still....... Let's hope every antitheist around here is as nice as they think themselves to be, eh?
-
What are you on about?
You accused Gordon of shite moderation, when he replied directly to a post of yours, and was not moderating.
Why would you indulge in such a dishonest tactic? I was thinking you might be needing a break and some time to think so I suggested that.
Take care, as I am a bit worried about you.
-
Just as your constant moaning should not be forced down the throats of Christians and Atheists alike.
You don't challenge anything or anyone.
a) you haven't the knowledge to challenge Christianity.
b) you weren't forced to join this forum.
Being a member of a forum is not the issue. Taking place in debates is not the issue.
But you take the biscuit when you have no arguments to offer in debates on this forum. Just moan and complain.
Just as you have no credible answers - of your own, not from the book of historical bollocks and bullshit - to any question put to you on this Forum. Your stock answer is "You don't know what you are talking about" followed by about 50 quotes from the aforementioned book.
-
You accused Gordon of shite moderation, when he replied directly to a post of yours, and was not moderating.
Why would you indulge in such a dishonest tactic? I was thinking you might be needing a break and some time to think so I suggested that.
Take care, as I am a bit worried about you.
I'm accusing anyone of shite moderation who let's Hillside and his claque go round referring to me as Trollboy.
In fact rather than let Hillside get me off this way,if the mds agreed with him, they've let him get away with it for some time now, they should have disciplined me for trolling!!!
Thanks for this concern I have tried to hang on but I think I shall now transfer my forum presence elsewhere thank you.
-
What's a claque? Isn't it those plastic balls on a bit of string that were big in the 70s?
-
Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'. In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence. Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.
If this is the way your mind works and your thinking goes - the Goddess alone knows how you were ever allowed to teach - anywhere!
-
I'm accusing anyone of shite moderation who let's Hillside and his claque go round referring to me as Trollboy.
Thanks for this concern I have tried to hang on but I think I shall now transfer my forum presence elsewhere thank you.
Peace be with you, and go with Dawkins.
-
What's a claque? Isn't it those plastic balls on a bit of string that were big in the 70s?
A group of people taken on to applaud one person and attack others.
-
There's an obvious solution, Vlad: stop trolling.
-
A group of people taken on to applaud one person and attack others.
As usual Trollbvoy gets it all wrong:
Oxford English Dictionary:
CLIQUE - a small group of people who spend time togerther and are unwilling yto allow others to join them.
-
As usual Trollbvoy gets it all wrong:
Osxford English Dictionary:
CLIQUE - a small group of people who spend time togerther and are unwilling yto allow others to join them.
No, he doesn't. He used Claque
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/claque
-
As usual Trollbvoy gets it all wrong:
LOL and ROFL.....Trollbvoy......ha ha ha.........gets it all wrong!!!! he he.
-
As usual Trollbvoy gets it all wrong:
Osxford English Dictionary:
Osxford? Isnt that where Dawskxins lives, Owlswing?
..........snork.
-
He's back! And he's changed to wumming!
-
Osxford? Isnt that where Dawskxins lives, Owlswing?
..........snork.
So speaks the man who never ever makes a typo! The problem is that the last man to come to Earth who was perfect got nailed to a cross - mind out that you don't end up with the same fate - TROLLBOY! Happy now!
Maybe we will see how many typo's you make when you are 70 and diabetes is wrecking your eyesight.
-
Hope you enjoyed your break, Vlad ;)
-
Hope you enjoyed your break, Vlad ;)
Te only tging that he is likely to break is a leg tripping over his ego and/or any stray -isms that lie in his path!
Oh Hell! I think that, like the Trollboy, I'll take a break - from reading his posts.
-
So speaks the man who never ever makes a typo! The problem is that the last man to come to Earth who was perfect got nailed to a cross - mind out that you don't end up with the same fate - TROLLBOY! Happy now!
Fuck me, that's the last straw.
-
Fuck me, that's the last straw.
Fuck you? Not while there are holes in the floors or dogs on the street!
-
Maybe we will see how many typo's you make when you are 70 and diabetes is wrecking your eyesight.
And you know that Vlad doesn't match those parameters? ;)
-
Hope,
Sorry, as i've mentioned many times, and just reiterated in my last post to Rhi, there have been a number of articles written - for instance, in the medical area - that have provided evidence of the sort you want but have been rejected because they go beyond the purely scientific.
Just out of interest, if not for the methods of science what methods did these alleged papers use instead to distinguish their claims from total bollocks?
As you may be aware that you, Trollboy and the other theists here who claim their god as an objective truth for the rest of us too always vanish when asked what method you/they would use for this purpose you'll understand that some of us have more than a passing interest in finally getting an answer to that question.
-
Hope,
Just out of interest, if not for the methods of science what methods did these alleged papers use instead to distinguish their claims from total bollocks?
The same can be asked of moral relativity and yet you continually polish that.
I will get round to leaving one day, it's not the codswallop although that's bad enough
...........it's the manners and the atmosphere slack moderation.
-
Two posters have registered on the poll that religion should not have a public forum.
I havent failed in the respect you state since I included such a category in the poll. Hardly failing in noticing.
Hillside however is interested in personal abuse, and putting thoughts and words which aren't mine. Still, no doubt that kind of thing appeals to his fans and his penchant for silly mindgames.
Again a slack application of moderation allows him and his claque to go around and do this sort of thing
In which Trollboy who so far as anyone can remember has almost never managed not to lie about what his interlocutors have said and then thrown evasion, abuse or further mendacity at the straw men he's constructed accuses other people of "personal abuse" and "putting thoughts and words which weren't mine" even though there's been no such abuse directed him and no such false representation of his position forgets that he's forgotten to include a category for for the type of public fora religions enjoyed already thanks to the protections and freedoms offered by our secular system, namely: "Buildings, signage, open spaces, door-to-door-representation, charitable status, special schools in which they're allowed to teach faith beliefs as if they were facts, guaranteed access to the legislature, privileged access to media outlets whenever matters of moral import are discussed, and "Thought for the Day"."
-
The same can be asked of moral relativity and yet you continually polish that.
In which Trollboy not only attempts a diversionary tactic in the hope that no-one notices his avoidance of the question about his absence of a method to distinguish his religious claims from nonsense but does so by resurrecting his already failed attempt at a false dilemma fallacy.
-
.....And then just when the antitheists thought they had an edenic paradise in which everything in the garden was rosy..............
Two people voted for No public forum for religion............
-
In which Trollboy not only attempts a diversionary tactic in the hope that no-one notices his avoidance of the question about his absence of a method to distinguish his religious claims from nonsense but does so by resurrecting his already failed attempt at a false dilemma fallacy.
We want to know what the morality bit is in the moral relativity schtick...........at the moment morals equals marmite.
-
Not strictly true since sociolgy and social science are not exact and politics is also an arena for competing moral positions hence the validity of religion in politics.
In which Trollboy attempts to conflate the provisional and tentative findings of sociology and social science with the supposedly factual claims of the religious in the hope that no-one notice the category error.
-
I will get round to leaving one day
Chalk up another one for Shaker's Law.
-
I'm accusing anyone of shite moderation who let's Hillside and his claque go round referring to me as Trollboy.
In which Trollboy's relentless trolling is identified as such and he then complains at being correctly labelled for his behaviour, apparently oblivious to the standing offer to respond to him when finally he stops trolling and instead attempts for once to engage honestly with what's actually said rather than just lie about it.
-
.....And then just when the antitheists thought they had an edenic paradise in which everything in the garden was rosy..............
In which Trollboy repeats his false conflation of atheism with anti-theism despite have a thread opened specifically to correct him on it.
-
In which Trollboy repeats his false conflation of atheism with anti-theism despite have a thread opened specifically to correct him on it.
How can I. I never even mentioned atheists..........another Turd Buff from the Smurf.
-
We want to know what the morality bit is in the moral relativity schtick...........at the moment morals equals marmite.
In which Trollboy appears to forget that he's been corrected on this matter on two different threads now but just vanished when it's happened only to reappear here to revivify his failed attempt at a false dilemma fallacy in the hope that no-one notices that his binary "objective morality vs real morality" has an eight-lane motorway of practical morality running through it, just as there are eight-lane motorways of practical aesthetics, practical legal judgments etc.
-
How can I. I never even mentioned atheists..........another Turd Buff from the Smurf.
In which Trollboy conveniently forgets that he consistently and relentlessly mis-labels those who make arguments that are merely atheistic as "anti-theists" even though he's been corrected on the difference between the two.
Is anyone else expecting a mushroom cloud on the horizon soon when he finally implodes into cataclysmic collapse under the overwhelming weight of his wrecked logic and pathological mendacity?
-
In which Trollboy conveniently forgets that he consistently and relentlessly mis-labels those who make arguments that are merely atheistic as "anti-theists" even though he's been corrected on the difference between the two.
Is anyone else expecting a mushroom cloud on the horizon soon when he finally implodes into cataclysmic collapse under the overwhelming weight of his wrecked logic and pathological mendacity?
Angry Smurf
-
Angry Smurf
In which having given up on reason, honesty and any interest at all he may once have had in debating anything Trollboy switches on his random word generator app and goes for lie down to try to figure out how to use some of the mountain of takeaway cartons to fashion a nice tinfoil hat while compiling a new list of -isms he can redefine for his personal use.
-
Best one yet bluey ;D
-
yeh..but they opted for a decisive ''no public forum.''
Revise your voting system.
ippy
-
Revise your voting system.
ippy
I'm sorry that'd be results massaging.
-
In which Trollboy conveniently forgets that he consistently and relentlessly mis-labels those who make arguments that are merely atheistic as "anti-theists" even though he's been corrected on the difference between the two.
Is anyone else expecting a mushroom cloud on the horizon soon when he finally implodes into cataclysmic collapse under the overwhelming weight of his wrecked logic and pathological mendacity?
The Deputy Super-Troll-in-Chief [in the absence fromthis forum of the Super-Troll-in-Chief] keeps going on about the "two [atheists - anti-theists] who have voted for "No public Forum"" when he considers that the vast majority of posters on this forum fall into these categories. Hardly what you would call an overwhelming vote against religious fora is it?
-
And you know that Vlad doesn't match those parameters? ;)
. . . and you, of course, being the fount of all knowledge about absolutely everything and everyone, do. Quelle surprise! NOT!
-
Sassy,
For the avoidance of doubt, are you – Sassy – actually accusing someone else of having "no arguments" and of being here just to "moan and complain"?
Someone else?????????!!!!!!!!!
Wow!
AND???
I am a child of God, saved by the power of God through the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When it comes to the things of God and the bible I am naturally in a better position than you and Floo to decide what the bible is teaching.
As I have said many time previous to this thread being written, both yourself and Floo, do not know the bible well enough to discuss it.
Ignorance is as Ignorance does and there is no surprise the blind lead the blind or support them. After all how can you see beyond the comments Floo makes when you have never supported your arguments or been able to show a good command or understanding of who Jesus Christ is, or what the bible it teaching.
Say whatever you may, I still know more about the bible and Jesus Christ than you will ever know in a life time of unbelief.
Floo and yourself are just not educated enough in the words of the bible to even realise why the above is true.
Say what remarks you will. The truth won't change. The fact is you have no true knowledge of Christ or Gods word.
So should remain quiet till you do.
-
If, we are honest there is no way that religion cannot be in the public eye and way of life.
One has to remember that to remove every belief a form of mind control would need to exist.
The Kingdom of God is about change from within affecting the external.
Can we really change that religion is a bigger fact of life than anything else in the world.
God being the central person and in Christianity Christ leading the way.
-
Sass thanks for the first funny I have come across today that really made me giggle!
"I am a child of God, saved by the power of God through the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When it comes to the things of God and the bible I am naturally in a better position than you and Floo to decide what the bible is teaching."
I suspect if god and Jesus were really around in the ether somewhere they wouldn't be thrilled to have you in their gang!
-
Sassy,
I am a child of God, saved by the power of God through the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
A belief I don't doubt you hold sincerely, even though you have provided no reason for anyone else to think you're right about that.
When it comes to the things of God and the bible I am naturally in a better position than you and Floo to decide what the bible is teaching.
Yes you are - I know as little about the contents of the Bible as you know about the contents of the Talmud, the Tao-te-ching, the Upanishads etc. You cannot though just assume "the things of God" and the contents of the Bible to be the same thing.
As I have said many time previous to this thread being written, both yourself and Floo, do not know the bible well enough to discuss it.
I agree, which is why I don't.
Ignorance is as Ignorance does and there is no surprise the blind lead the blind or support them. After all how can you see beyond the comments Floo makes when you have never supported your arguments or been able to show a good command or understanding of who Jesus Christ is, or what the bible it teaching.
But before we get to the Bible (or to an other "holy" text for the matter) you have to address the primary ignorance at play here: that is, your ignorance of the basic logical fallacy you're unwittingly attempting called the reification fallacy. Just saying "the Bible is the word of God" doesn't actually make it the word of God. That's why I've asked you several times how you would break out of your circular reasoning of: "God is real because the Bible says so/the Bible is accurate because God made it that way" but you never answer. That's the "argument" that's actually relevant here, and ironically the person who never addresses it is you: just quoting ever-longer chunks from a book isn't an argument of any kind, it's just chunks from a book. What you're doing here in other words is equivalent to me claiming that Harry Potter is real and quoting chunks from "Philosopher's Stone" as my argument for it.
Say whatever you may, I still know more about the bible and Jesus Christ than you will ever know in a life time of unbelief.
So how would you respond if you challenged my Potterism and I replied: "Say whatever you may, I still know more about the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter than you will ever know in a life time of unbelief"?
I agree that you know more about the Bible, though I have no idea whether you know anything at all about Jesus Christ. I know though that you either will not or cannot explain why we should agree with your faith beliefs and so we must treat you as probably wrong until and unless you can do that without collapsing straight back into fallacious thinking.
Sorry, but there it is.
-
. . . and you, of course, being the fount of all knowledge about absolutely everything and everyone, do. Quelle surprise! NOT!
That's an interesting way to avoid the question, Owl.
-
That's an interesting way to avoid the question, Owl.
I learnt how to avoid answering questions from the Forum experts at doing so - you, Sassy and Vlad!
It is called "reaping what you sow".
-
I learnt how to avoid answering questions from the Forum experts at doing so - you, Sassy and Vlad.
I am learning myself - from you and others.
-
I am learning myself - from you and others.
Oh, no, Ducky, you were here long before I arrived and I started taking my lessons from you on day one!
-
Hope,
I am learning myself - from you and others.
Well, before you learn too much, perhaps you could trouble us with your reply to my question about what method the authors of these alleged articles that "went beyond the scientific" proposed to enable the editors of the journals that rejected them to sift their claims from complete nonsense.
Thanks.
-
Hope,
Well, before you learn too much, perhaps you could trouble us with your reply to my question about what method the authors of these alleged articles that "went beyond the scientific" proposed to enable the editors of the journals that rejected them to sift their claims from complete nonsense.
Thanks.
8) ;D ::)
-
I am learning myself - from you and others.
... though patently not what a logical fallacy is and how to avoid committing them.
-
... though patently not what a logical fallacy is and how to avoid committing them.
watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them. Of course this cheeky Wee chappy is taking the pee and imho knows exactly what he is doing.
-
watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them.
Examples?
-
watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them. Of course this cheeky Wee chappy is taking the pee and imho knows exactly what he is doing.
In which Trollboy who's never correctly identified a logical fallacy by someone else but who relies entirely on an unholy mix of fallacy, dishonesty and abuse for his trolling bizarrely and mistakenly accuses someone else of logical fallacies.
-
Shakes,
Examples?
There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.
-
Shakes,
There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.
Not lying - surely - just trying to divert attention from the fact that he is trolling and is well aware of that fact but hasn't worked out how to get out of it now that other posters have made it clear that he really should find another bridge from under which he can hunt billygoats.
-
Hi Owls,
Not lying - surely - just trying to divert attention from the fact that he is trolling and is well aware of that fact but hasn't worked out how to get put of it now that other posters have made it clear that he really should find another bridge from under which he can hunt billygoats.
Well, I'm not sure that his lying and his addiction to diversionary tactics are necessarily different things but I take the point. While he's fond of accusing others of logical fallacies, when he attempts to demonstrate the charge he just displays his ignorance of what those fallacies actually entail. I might for example use an analogy about football teams, only to have Trollboy reply with something like, "Ha, but Arsenal play in red shirts while Spurs play in white shirts, another category fuck up by..." etc apparently in the odd belief that an analogy must by the same in every respect rather than just in the relevant ones to be in the same category.
Me, I can forgive his ignorance the first few times but when some of us take the trouble to correct him but he continues with the misrepresentations then that seems to me to put him squarely in the category of lying. Which is trolling.
-
Shakes,
There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.
Shaker asked me to provide examples of people who didn't want any public forum for religion.............presumably because he thought It impossible when blow me two people fitting the bill turned up on a poll!,
The moral is ' keep em peeled and examine posts from a smurfian origin.
-
Shaker asked me to provide examples of people who didn't want any public forum for religion.............presumably because he thought It impossible when blow me two people fitting the bill turned up on a poll!,
In which Trollboy is asked by Shakes specifically for examples of me committing logical fallacies and replies with a response to a different question entirely so as to divert attention from the fact that his charge under discussion was not true.
-
In which Trollboy is asked by Shakes specifically for examples of me committing logical fallacies and replies with a response to a different question entirely so as to divert attention from the fact that his charge under discussion was not true.
I was convinced right at the beginning that the two "no public forum" votes were probably from the fundamentalist Christian clique. I have seen no reason whatsoever on the thread to change that opinion.
-
I was convinced right at the beginning that the two "no public forum" votes were probably from the fundamentalist Christian clique. I have seen no reason whatsoever on the thread to change that opinion.
What's the reason you have for being convinced?
-
What's the reason you have for being convinced?
Gut feeling - no more than that! However, I would not be surprised if it turned out otherwise.
It is a matter of trying to measure the depth of dislike of religion of the forum's atheists against the overweaning need of the fundamentalist Christians to show that they are a persecuted minority on the Forum.
-
So if Vlad says it is his gut feeling that there were such antitheists it is just as valid as your's.
-
Sass thanks for the first funny I have come across today that really made me giggle!
"I am a child of God, saved by the power of God through the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When it comes to the things of God and the bible I am naturally in a better position than you and Floo to decide what the bible is teaching."
I suspect if god and Jesus were really around in the ether somewhere they wouldn't be thrilled to have you in their gang!
Had you known your bible then you would know that there is
King James Bible
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
God welcomes sinners into the family. People need the LORD God because there are people like you in the world who always want to attack and tear down anything alien to them without good cause.
Guess you will never understand a family with A Father who is God and loves them.
-
There is nothing in the Bible which indicates the god presented there is anything but very nasty. god and love are an oxymoron.
-
There is nothing in the Bible which indicates the god presented there is anything but very nasty. god and love are an oxymoron.
Ignorance abounds in your post.
-
Ignorance abounds in your post.
You can never answer a straight question ever, what is loving about your god, you never answer that one do you?
-
So if Vlad says it is his gut feeling that there were such antitheists it is just as valid as your's.
No, because his 'antitheists' do not exist on this forum, they only exist in his imagination; the fundamentalist Christians DO exist. Very very obviously and there are reams and reams of posts to prove it.
-
No, because his 'antitheists' do not exist on this forum, they only exist in his imagination; the fundamentalist Christians DO exist. Very very obviously and there are reams and reams of posts to prove it.
bluehillside has stated that he is antitheist. Not perhaps Vlad's caricature of one but stated it.
-
NS,
bluehillside has stated that he is antitheist. Not perhaps Vlad's caricature of one but stated it.
To clarify, what I've said is that I am both an atheist (ie, I see no reason to believe in the existence of gods) and an anti-theist (ie, on balance I think theism does more harm than good) but they're in different categories of belief. You could for example be a theist and an anti-theist - ie. someone who thinks there is a god but who would rather there wasn't.
The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.
-
NS,
:'(
To clarify, what I've said is that I am both an atheist (ie, I see no reason to believe in the existence of gods) and an anti-theist (ie, on balance I think theism does more harm than good) but they're in different categories of belief. You could for example be a theist and an anti-theist - ie. someone who thinks there is a god but who would rather there wasn't.
The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.
Irrelevant to Owlswing's gut reaction.
-
NS,
Irrelevant to Owlswing's gut reaction.
No so sure. Owls rejected Trollboy's characterisation of anti-theists - ie, anyone who happens to express an atheist position - I think. That a sub-set of that group also happen to think that theism is a bad idea is a different matter. Not sure I feel strongly either way to be frank, but I just wanted to clarify.
-
The problem though is that Owlswing is taking a position that no one would vote for the No Public Forum who actually believes that, and that he thinks it more likely that this is 'fundamentalist' Christians who have decided to mischief make. I don't see we have any reason to decide that.
-
Dear Blue,
The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.
Not that Nearly Sane makes a whole big case for atheism, in fact I struggle with his arguments as he has a tendency to get to the heart of a argument, he makes you really think, my point is, my only point, Vlad is on record as singling out Sane as most definitely not anti theist, so not anyone.
I get where Vlad is coming from, he is an angry Christian, they are allowed, most of the time I am completely lost as to what he is chuntering on about, but when he shouts anti theist, for me, he is simply being an angry Christian and sometimes he is right.
Gonnagle.
-
Not sure about no-one, but very few I'd have thought would say "no public forum". As a basic freedom of speech issue secularists at least would protect the rights of the religious to practice their various faiths without hindrance. Whether nonetheless some atheists voted that way or it was one or more agent provocateur is impossible to say, though I tend to discount conspiracy versions as a matter of course.
The problem with the poll by the way is that it doesn't have a "maintain the status quo" option. I'd vote against that - faith schools, bishops in the HoL etc - but I'd vote for the private members' club option - buildings with signs at the front etc.
-
Gonners,
Not that Nearly Sane makes a whole big case for atheism, in fact I struggle with his arguments as he has a tendency to get to the heart of a argument, he makes you really think, my point is, my only point, Vlad is on record as singling out Sane as most definitely not anti theist, so not anyone.
I get where Vlad is coming from, he is an angry Christian, they are allowed, most of the time I am completely lost as to what he is chuntering on about, but when he shouts anti theist, for me, he is simply being an angry Christian and sometimes he is right.
First, I think you'll find that he pretty consistently mis-labels anyone who posts a atheistic argument as an anti-theist despite having the error explained to him.
Second though, how is anger an appropriate response for anyone over the age of about six? "Anti-theist" is such a vague term in any case - it encompasses those who think theism does more harm than good and is therefore a bad idea at one end to those (much rarer) who would ban it in a heartbeat if they could at the other. I'm an "anti-Tory" for example, but I wouldn't propose banning them.
-
I'd pretty much agree with that. I don't think that an anonymous poll gives Vlad the evidence he claims, nor do I think there is any justification for Owlswing's position.
I didn't vote as I think it's badly phrased and unclear.
-
Dear Blue,
Sorry mate, I was simply making a small point, most who argue with Vlad seem to understand, me, I am totally lost, I tried to follow the objective moral argument, right over my head, and no, please don't try to make me understand :P I will get it in my own sweet time ;)
I did once decipher one of his arguments, he was simply saying greed was wrong, why he goes all around the tree's to make that simple point, well it is Vlad, and you old son know him much better than I do :o
Gonnagle.
-
Hey Gonners,
Sorry mate, I was simply making a small point, most who argue with Vlad seem to understand, me, I am totally lost, I tried to follow the objective moral argument, right over my head, and no, please don't try to make me understand :P I will get it in my own sweet time ;)
I think you do him too much credit. At first sight you might think that his (mis)use of long words suggests some content, but in fact there is none. He has no argument even conceptually for objective morality, and nowhere for it to exist even if he did. He confines himself therefore to asserting the model of morality that fits all the observable data to be "disproven" in the hope that no-one notices he hasn't even attempted a disproof. Just to pile on his personal grief, he also seems to want to carve out just one aspect of human experience - morality - from the others that rely just as readily on probabilistic rights and wrongs (law, aesthetics etc) and to claim for some unknown reason that, if it's not objective, then that one alone can't be "real" - a basic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.
It really is that vapid. Really.
I did once decipher one of his arguments, he was simply saying greed was wrong, why he goes all around the tree's to make that simple point, well it is Vlad, and you old son know him much better than I do :o
A depressing thought. Usually in my experience those who have a cogent position will express it cogently - it's those who never answer questions except with other (generally irrelevant) questions, who vanish in the face of arguments that undo them, who rely on fallacious thinking, who throw abuse at their interlocutors in place of counter-argument etc who more often than not are defending a cupboard that's entirely bare in any case.
-
Hey Gonners,
I think you do him too much credit. At first sight you might think that his (mis)use of long words suggests some content, but in fact there is none. He has no argument even conceptually for objective morality, and nowhere for it to exist even if he did. He confines himself therefore to asserting the model of morality that fits all the observable data to be "disproven" in the hope that no-one notices he hasn't even attempted a disproof. Just to pile on his personal grief, he also seems to want to carve out just one aspect of human experience - morality - from the others that rely just as readily on probabilistic rights and wrongs (law, aesthetics etc) and to claim for some unknown reason that, if it's not objective, then that one alone can't be "real" - a basic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.
It really is that vapid. Really.
A depressing thought. Usually in my experience those who have a cogent position will express it cogently - it's those who never answer questions except with other (generally irrelevant) questions, who vanish in the face of arguments that undo them, who rely on fallacious thinking, who throw abuse at their interlocutors in place of counter-argument etc who more often than not are defending a cupboard that's entirely bare in any case.
He really isn't worth the time you waste on him.
-
Hi Len - nice to hear from you again.
He really isn't worth the time you waste on him.
I agree - feeding the house troll is never a good idea. I was just sharing the thought with Gonners is all. How's Spain?
-
Hi Len - nice to hear from you again.
I agree - feeding the house troll is never a good idea. I was just sharing the thought with Gonners is all. How's Spain?
Bleedin' 'ot right now, which is why I am skulking indoors on the puter. (not to be confused with 'puta'). ;)
-
Len,
Bleedin' 'ot right now, which is why I am skulking indoors on the puter. (not to be confused with 'puta'). ;)
Quite so - could get awful messy if you did...
Fun fact: puttanesca sauce is so called because it was a quick meal the working girls could prepare before they went out for the night (though I'm sure you knew that) :)
-
Dear Leo Jams,
Typical Brit, complaining about the weather :P
Gonnagle.
-
I'd pretty much agree with that. I don't think that an anonymous poll gives Vlad the evidence he claims, nor do I think there is any justification for Owlswing's position.
I didn't vote as I think it's badly phrased and unclear.
Can you count just how many f***s I give as to whether you agree with muy position or not?
There would be no point in this forum if we all agreed on everything!
"I disagree with/disapprove of (depending who you read) what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
-
Len,
Quite so - could get awful messy if you did...
Fun fact: puttanesca sauce is so called because it was a quick meal the working girls could prepare before they went out for the night (though I'm sure you knew that) :)
I confess to complete ignorance of the stuff until this moment.
On another note I admit to having sex with various putas when I was a young man and still trying to be 'normal'. :) .