Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Moving to OTT

Greebynog wrote:Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

Dangerous might be a little harsh, it depends on the circumstances. I understand why people like religion, but it claims to have answers without evidence and demands faith of its adherents. I think it's a route to easy answers for an unquestioning mind. But in the main it doesn't matter. But when it does matter is when it's pushed onto others. Particularly the Intelligent Design push in America to get it accepted in schools as a valid alternative to evolution. It's not a science, and doesn't belong in the science class. The only reason it rumbles on is because there are so many supporters that want to pervert science not really understanding what it's about, they just see it as a threat and want to turn it over and get their ideas put alongside, or in place of.

the other problem is when you have an obvious situation where people choose anecdote over fact. Not so much a problem when you're in a grey area for science because, say for some areas of medicine, you're largely trying things and just hoping anyway. But some people reject established science in place of anecdote and this is plain daft. I don't know why this is. They think there's a conspiracy carried out by science to undermine spiritualism, but things like homeopathy have been scientifically disproven to have an effect. People still support it, and it's largely untouchable because these people are careful to avoid making medical claims. The areas of the industries like homeopathy, crystal healing, astrology and the others are rather unregulated and rake in massive amounts of cash. Yet genuine, conventional medicine is subject to incredible scrutiny.

These kinds of pseudo-science are so frequently accepted in society even though they have no basis in reality. Look in almost any newspaper and you will see a column for astrology. Astrology is nonsense, how can all people on the planet be pigeonholed into one of twelve types of people based on their birthdate, and their day to day lives affected by the movements of planets which are a physical constant in the universe predicted by gravity, mass, velocity etc. Yet people writing these columns actually claim to be able to tell your future and then encourage you to phone them on a premium rate line to get more spurious details of your forthcoming day or week. It's the same with crystal healing and all the rest, and they're a huge source of revenue, these industries are massive. Why is this allowed? It's an obvious con. The answer is that the industry is poorly regulated, for most other services you have to prove you are providing an actual service or Trading Standards will prosecute you under the Trades Descriptions Act.

Greebynog wrote:Sociologoy looks at the over-arching effects of religon though, and that's where I'm coming from.

You are correct in your assumption about a huge christian majority, yes. There is a Budhist community, it's age is irrelevant as far as I see.

The problem with your cherry picking argument is that the bible is the supposed word of God, and therefore should it not be perfect? If it isn't, how can it be the word of God? If it is not the word of God, what is Christianity based on?

The idea of religion creates more problems than it solves, if you reason that life was created by a higher being, then who created the higher being?

Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

I don't think that failure to identify the creator of the creator necessarily is evidence for the creator's nonexistence, anymore than saying that since we don't know what initiated the big bang and the expansion of space ( yet ) the theory is therefore meaningless.

It just seems that some things just are, it is apparently just natural for human beings to look for reasons for things. One might argue religion serves that very purpose. The author Stephen Baxter has some very good speculation on just that sort of thing in several of his books, namely Evolution

Greebynog wrote:Sociologoy looks at the over-arching effects of religon though, and that's where I'm coming from.

Sociology isn't designed to purely study religion. It isn't the main academic field in which to dig into the history, place, and nuances of human spirituality and expression. Sociology isn't really a field that judges like that either, it's more about human trends and the expression of the trends. It's also a social science, which most hard sciences tend to look down on. Sociology is useful and has a place, but you are giving it much more authority over things it isn't involved in then it has.

Greebynog wrote:You are correct in your assumption about a huge christian majority, yes. There is a Budhist community, it's age is irrelevant as far as I see.

Then you seem to have trouble seeing the "over-arching" effects of things. Look closer at your day to day life and the things you never think about and things you see but don't consider.

Greebynog wrote:The problem with your cherry picking argument is that the bible is the supposed word of God, and therefore should it not be perfect? If it isn't, how can it be the word of God? If it is not the word of God, what is Christianity based on?

There you go again, talking above your experience. If you had taken any Religious Studies courses you would understand the problem with making such an uninformed statement. Is the Christian Bible (version not important at the moment):

1. The literal word of god and every part absolutely true?
2. The word of god channeled through imperfect humans that needs to be studied?
3. Parables and metaphors that are easier that are meant to teach lessons and help us understand what god wants and not literal

Now these are but three possibilities and there are others. Trying to argue against Christianity (which sect not important at the moment) by saying that it can't possibly be the word of god because you find it flawed. I find your arguments flawed but I'm not arguing that you aren't you.

Greebynog wrote:The idea of religion creates more problems than it solves, if you reason that life was created by a higher being, then who created the higher being?

Golly, can god make a rock so heavy even god can't move it? Deep thinking. Again, you are obsessed with The Religions of The Books perspective. Many religions don't believe in a creator in this sense, or at all.

It also shows a flaw in human perception. We apply our experience to everything. We have to make things so we see things as having to be made, thus the only way God can exist is if something made God, but our perspective is so limited. My finite existence and knowledge can't judge something that is infinite and omnipotent. You think an your blood cells have any concept of you?

Greebynog wrote:
Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

No, dangerous people are dangerous. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not religious men and they slaughtered millions of people in extraordinarily heinous ways and they were not religious. Fervent belief in your own absolute rightness tends to lead to this danger, be it either that absolute knowledge that Allah wants you to take over the world and slaughter all the infidels or that religion is an absolute danger to humanity and must be marginalized, if not eliminated.

Religion is a part of the human life. It goes back further then Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam. It covers the world, not just the Middle East. There is no need present a false choice fallacy. You can be spiritual and scientific, you don't have to pick one or the other.

If it makes you feel better, I am not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You can't dismiss these arguments as those of an unreasoned believer.

Ahtman, your arguments would have no less validity if you were a Cristian, Jew or Muslim.

Thank you for your explanation of Sociology, but I'm well aware of what it does and is after five years of study, thanks all the same. As for social sciences being looked down upon by hard science, that's as maybe, but religion is seen as the absoloute antithesis of science.

If it makes you feel any better, I took religious studies for my entire primary and secondary school life, and have a GCSE in it. I think that's an irrelevance.

As for 'talking above my experience', I wasn't aware you'd had personal contact with the lord and maker yourself. I guess I should just stop thinking about things bigger than myself, eh? Don't want to talk above my experience.

The problem with your rebuttal that my argument is flawed, but you're not claiming I'm not me, is that I'm not claiming to be perfect, omnipotent and worthy of worship. I think you have missed the point of what I said there, I was raising the same points you were, but looking at it from another side. If the bible isn't the direct word of the lord, how can you trust it? That just makes it some words that some person said. The only reason it has any authority is the fact that it's backed by time and ritual.

Here's a nice analogy from Bertrand Russell.

Imagine there's a china teapot orbiting the sun. It's far too small to be picked up by any telescope, so it can't be seen. You can't disprove the existence of the teapot, but it would be unreasonable to believe in the teapot without any evidence of it. So, we are all teapot atheists. Anyone who did believe in a china teapot orbiting the sun would be considered mad. Now imagine that your parents believe in the teapot, and all your family, and your friends, and your leaders, and your teachers, imagine *everyone* believed in the teapot, and had done for thousands of years, and there were huge imposing buildings, rituals and holy books dedicated to the teapot. Now anyone who didn't believe in the teapot is considered mad.

Again your argument is flawed in your next point, my blood cells have no cognitive ability, and are not being asked to worship me blindly. My point was that the idea of a creator solves nothing, tells us nothing, and ludicrous when applied to rational thought. I realise that irrational people cannot be swayed with rationality though.

As for religions of the book, it doesn't matter, I find ideas of reincarnation and karma to be particularly loathsome, especially karma. To suggest that bad things happen to bad people is to suggest that the poor, the diseased and the needy somehow desere thier fate, which leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.

As for dangerous people being dangerous, of course, as I said earlier, many times, I don't for a second believe all evils are carried out in the name of religion. To do so would be debatng suicide. The word you uses that is important is absoloute, there are few absoloutes to science. Scientists do not want to destroy people from other belief systems, and are open to other viewpoints, as long as there is evidence to back them up. Science has an open mind. Religious people beleive that they have an absoloute right, the word of God, the ultimate good. This absoloute certainty, that cannot be shaken by reason or any other means, is what is dangerous. Your example is perfect.

You cannot be truly spiritual, and truly scientific. Science does not allow for such fanciful guesswork. And yes, religion does go back further than the current day ones, I assume you don't believe in Thor or Ra, but there is no less evidence for those religions. You are already atheistic about those, and the religions of the book. I just go one god further.

Don't get too high on the science horse. For every scientist researching a longer lasting light bulb there is one searching for a better nerve gas to kill us all with.
Religion can be used as a tool both by and against dictators, but the same is said for science.

Then again, to the topic, I thought the plural of anecdote was anecdotes?

I think that judging a huge area of human experience like religion by it's excesses and failures alone is a flawed approach. The flaws and errors of religion are very public and historical, but the benefits and good works are often very private.

Organized religions, like any other human structure, can quickly become a tool of oppression, both major and minor. Yes, Organized religions (OR) can become quite tyrannical and malicious, but so can nearly all groups, like nations, economic blocks, or States. Religion is dangerous, but fearing what it can do is no reason to destroy it. OR often stops having a spiritual or religious focus and instead is focused primarily on material wealth. Is this a fault of religion, or is it simply an aspect of human corruptibility?

As has been pointed out, many religions encourage or even mandate discovery, intellectualism, and scholarship. Religion is, for most people an approach to philosophy. Not every person has the skills or time to become a philosopher. Not every person wants to ascertain for himself truth from scratch. Religion provides a way of, if not answering the big questions, at least providing ways of thinking about them. A poster once pointed out the flaw in the bible and asked if christianity was possible or consistent with a flawed text. Christianity, in it's many and incredibly varied forms, is based on a fairly simple premise: that Death is not the end of existence, that with faith in God and a dedication to living morally by treating others as well as we'd like to be treated, the Dead can rise and live with God. that's the core of it, the rest of the bible, or even the gosples, just fills in the gaps.

Now, I'm an ardent supporter of science, so I'm not wild about the actions of many, many religious people when they seek to use their religion to control others. The problem isn't the religion any more than the weapon is to blame in a murder: it's the person wielding it.

Greebynog wrote:

Here's a nice analogy from Bertrand Russell.

Imagine there's a china teapot orbiting the sun. It's far too small to be picked up by any telescope, so it can't be seen. You can't disprove the existence of the teapot, but it would be unreasonable to believe in the teapot without any evidence of it. So, we are all teapot atheists. Anyone who did believe in a china teapot orbiting the sun would be considered mad. Now imagine that your parents believe in the teapot, and all your family, and your friends, and your leaders, and your teachers, imagine *everyone* believed in the teapot, and had done for thousands of years, and there were huge imposing buildings, rituals and holy books dedicated to the teapot. Now anyone who didn't believe in the teapot is considered mad.

Good old Bert. He's a clear thinker and a fine mind, and truly one of the shibboleths of intellectualism. Here, he makes a pretty big leap that makes his point rather weak, but to be fair to him he was writing at a time when religion was far more hostile to science than it is now. In his analogy, everybody believes in a teapot that nobody can see, but they do so for no reason! People don't believe in god simply because they are told to, they do so because they were told that god was the reason and the answer behind a lot of questions, and they haven't replaced that theory with something better. I doesn't matter what form god is, the concept has use to people, and not just as a way to control others.

Again your argument is flawed in your next point, my blood cells have no cognitive ability, and are not being asked to worship me blindly. My point was that the idea of a creator solves nothing, tells us nothing, and ludicrous when applied to rational thought. I realise that irrational people cannot be swayed with rationality though.

I think that the idea of a creator solves quite a bit. No scientist could answer the question "why is there an existence?" Religion can. Maybe not correctly, but it can at least try. I'd watch your words a bit as well. It's worrying to see the suggestion that we are all irrational, coupled with your analogy to "blind worship." Maybe in some religions that's supported, but most religions involve large amounts of personal choice and relfection. it's a root cause problem: why shoudl I think that god is good? because if he created existence, and existence is good, then I owe the guy one.

As for dangerous people being dangerous, of course, as I said earlier, many times, I don't for a second believe all evils are carried out in the name of religion. To do so would be debatng suicide. The word you uses that is important is absoloute, there are few absoloutes to science. Scientists do not want to destroy people from other belief systems, and are open to other viewpoints, as long as there is evidence to back them up. Science has an open mind. Religious people beleive that they have an absoloute right, the word of God, the ultimate good. This absoloute certainty, that cannot be shaken by reason or any other means, is what is dangerous. Your example is perfect.

Again, you speak in absolutes that are hard to support. Many religions are becoming increasingly ecumenical, particularly the Eastern religions. Even the Catholic Church supports Judaism as a valid religion. Yes, many times religious organizations use doctrinal differences for political, military, or economic gain. that doesn't mean every religion believes the others are wrong. It's a little thing, but you should really be more careful in making sure that you are making an argument, not a rant.

You cannot be truly spiritual, and truly scientific. Science does not allow for such fanciful guesswork. And yes, religion does go back further than the current day ones, I assume you don't believe in Thor or Ra, but there is no less evidence for those religions. You are already atheistic about those, and the religions of the book. I just go one god further.

One of the reasons polytheism withered as it did was it's sheer provincialism. Ra literally rode the sun across the nile valley. Once the ejyptians realized that the world was bigger than their valley, they slowly shifted to other religions.

In science, many wrong theories are proposed, accepted, and then dropped as better ones emerge. Modern religions are far more abstract and theologically complex (while doctrinally simpler) than the older ones, and quite simply they work better.

As for the assertion that you can't be both scientific and spiritual, I simply don't see how believing there can be beings or powers or knowledge beyond our understanding makes the ability to test and analyze the information we can understand any less powerful. If you mean that you can't be a Biblical Literalist and be a good geologist, then you might have an argument, but how would a belief in re-incarnation and/or karma make a person unable to be a top notch astronomer?

How do you know your blood cells don't know anything have you talked to them? Is it their fault you don't know how to understand them?

It's also not my fault you don't understand metaphor and analogy even though you supposedly have a university education.

Greebynog wrote:For example the bible story where a male traveller stops at an inn, and attempts to have sex with a man there. The disgusted inn keeper gives the traveller his daughter to rape, rather than have him lie with a man.

I'll find the verses for you if you would like.

Um, I think you need to work on your Bible study:
- it's not just any "male traveller", it's an Angel (in disguise)
- it's not just an inn, it's Sodom
- the traveller's don't attempt to have sex with anyone - the Sodomites demand to have sex with the travellers.
- it's not just an innkeeper, it's Lot, nephew of Abraham
The story has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather talks to Abraham's optomism, Lot's hospitality, and his wife's disobedience before God.

IMHO, if your memory of a fundamental and widely-told bible story is this poor, you really aren't qualified to be talking about religion in general.

Greebynog wrote:You are correct in your assumption about a huge christian majority, yes.

Religious thinking is dangerous because it encourages unreason as a positive virtue, which has grave potential, as we all have seen.

World-wide, Christians are merely the largest minority, but they are *not* a majority except in Western nations.

Given that Science cannot explain everything (and this can be proven so), Religion is an able counterpart to provide a belief system or moral code where there would otherwise be a void. Unquestioned belief in "science" is no better than blind faith in religion, merely substituting one dogma for another.

Greebynog wrote:Thank you for your explanation of Sociology, but I'm well aware of what it does and is after five years of study, thanks all the same. As for social sciences being looked down upon by hard science, that's as maybe, but religion is seen as the absoloute antithesis of science.

If it makes you feel any better, I took religious studies for my entire primary and secondary school life, and have a GCSE in it. I think that's an irrelevance.

A couple comments here:
- I think you're not usuing Sociology properly, despite your 5 years of study
- People like you arguing from your own authority as a "Sociologist", whilst demonstrating gross ignorance and inaccuracy of the facts, is the reason why most hard science types tend to look down on social "scientists".
- Religion is NOT the absolute antithesis of Science. It is an adjunct.

It actually makes me feel a lot worse about those who taught you and gave you a GCSE (whatever that is) - they should have their accreditation revoked!


And FWIW, I'm an atheist.

One thing I've always wondered is why people against religion typically assume that every person who practices a religion must follow every rule, or that they are not "really" practicing that religion if they don't.

Would you say everyone who is a "Democrat" must agree with everything Obama believes? Or the same with "Republican" and Bush or McCain? Or even any other major denominational group?

I'm going to clarify a couple of things then I'm leaving it. The tone of this has been dropped to the level of condecension and ridicule by some, and I, for one, can't be arsed.

-I have never claimed to be arguing from the point of a sociologist! I never mentioned that I studied the field until it was demanded of me, I don't believe academic education gives my viewpoints any more validity than anyone elses. I never claimed to have authority, and I think think it's unfair that that has been used against me.

-I have never angled my posts from a position of hate. I don't hate anyone because of their beliefs.

-I believe religion is unnecesary in the modern age, it serves no purpose other than to provide false hope to people, and belittles the majesty of nature.

-Religion is the antithesis of science. Science is coming to conclusions because of evidence. Religion is coming to conclusions because someone with authority told you, despite evidence, or a lack thereof.

-John, I simplified the story, obviously, I'm sorry for getting the details wrong. It was clumsy of me, but there are a dozen other passages I could have chosen, including ones advising the murder of anyone who tells you not to believe in god, and the condoning of stoning adulterers. The story of Lot shows clearly that men are regarded higher than women, and that homosexuality can be cured by rape. Nice stuff.

I'm over this debate, it's become personal from some corners, I am repeating myself ad nauseum, it seems no-one is understanding what I type, and I'm sick of being portrayed as a manic, frothing, espouser of hate for disliking religion. I don't know how I can make my position any clearer. If you want to get into my views a bit more, I suggest you e-mail Richard Dawkins, a particuarly brilliant man, with whom I share a lot in common in terms of viewpoints, who will be able to clear this up a lot more deftly than I ever could.

Greebynog wrote:I'm going to clarify a couple of things then I'm leaving it. The tone of this has been dropped to the level of condecension and ridicule by some, and I, for one, can't be arsed.

There's a certain irony to you accusing us all of condescencion.

-I have never claimed to be arguing from the point of a sociologist! I never mentioned that I studied the field until it was demanded of me, I don't believe academic education gives my viewpoints any more validity than anyone elses. I never claimed to have authority, and I think think it's unfair that that has been used against me.

-

I'm not sure your particular training or education was used against you, rather that your propensity for seeping and unsupported claims doesn't seem proper for any person of university training.

-I have never angled my posts from a position of hate. I don't hate anyone because of their beliefs.

Intent is hard to read on the internet. If what you read can be twisted into an insult, somebody will probably do it.

-I believe religion is unnecesary in the modern age, it serves no purpose other than to provide false hope to people, and belittles the majesty of nature.

I don't know if you've seen the irony here. Nobody here has talked about their "beliefs," except you. See, the horrible secret about aetheism is that it's a belief just like any other. Given no evidence or data about the sprititual, any choice is a belief. What's more, your "sect" of atheism is much like the religions you criticize so fervently: you think you have the only path to truth and that all the non-believers are wrong. Admittedly you don't think we're going to hell, you just think we're deluded.

-Religion is the antithesis of science. Science is coming to conclusions because of evidence. Religion is coming to conclusions because someone with authority told you, despite evidence, or a lack thereof.

This is another part of a certain brand of atheist dogma. Why are they antithetical? The anti-thesis of science is ignoring empirical evidence. Religion, by your very defintion, only operates in areas where science cannot. That sounds like a complement, not an opposite.

-John, I simplified the story, obviously, I'm sorry for getting the details wrong. It was clumsy of me, but there are a dozen other passages I could have chosen, including ones advising the murder of anyone who tells you not to believe in god, and the condoning of stoning adulterers. The story of Lot shows clearly that men are regarded higher than women, and that homosexuality can be cured by rape. Nice stuff.

Those passages were written thousands of years ago, and nearly all thinkers interpret them in the context of their time. Not to be overvly smarmy, but Eugenics and Racial Theory were commonly accepted by scientists as recently as 75 years ago. Yes, parts of the Bible don't apply to our modern lives, or nobody could wear a cotton poly blend or work on the Sabbath.

I'm over this debate, it's become personal from some corners, I am repeating myself ad nauseum, it seems no-one is understanding what I type, and I'm sick of being portrayed as a manic, frothing, espouser of hate for disliking religion. I don't know how I can make my position any clearer. If you want to get into my views a bit more, I suggest you e-mail Richard Dawkins, a particuarly brilliant man, with whom I share a lot in common in terms of viewpoints, who will be able to clear this up a lot more deftly than I ever could.

There's a truism: if nobody is understanding what you're saying, it's not always their fault. Look, this is the internet. We've had this little talk, oh, about a dozen times each. When people refute your arguments, you clarify them or rebeut theirs, you don't simply repeat.

Now, if what you are saying is that you have a belief that was granted to you by an authority, and you don't wnat it challenged by the harsh light of logic or the search for truth, we'll let you retreat into the warm confines of dogma.... (I keed, I keed).

P.S. It's impolite to post and say you're done. It's trying to get the last word and cutting off response.

Sorry for that implied rudeness, I didn't intend for that, I simply meant that unless anything majorly different to what has already been said came up I wouldn't be responding any more, I don't feel anyone has anything to gain from it, I will still be reading response, obviously. I'm sorry I appeared condescending, it was never my intent, and I think a number of my posts made that very clear.

Greebynog wrote:@Akira: My knowledge of religion is largely based on my degree,

Greebynog wrote:I never mentioned that I studied the field until it was demanded of me, I don't believe academic education gives my viewpoints any more validity than anyone elses.

You brought up your education as an appeal to authority, we didn't. It's only fair of us to then ask you what that is. My academic background gives me more validity.

Greebynog wrote:I'm going to clarify a couple of things then I'm leaving it. The tone of this has been dropped to the level of condecension and ridicule by some, and I, for one, can't be arsed.

Um, I thought you were leaving? No?

IMO, negative tone of this likely traces back to your overly-broad statement slamming religion, compounded by your subsequent attacks.

Greebynog wrote:-I have never claimed to be arguing from the point of a sociologist! I never mentioned that I studied the field until it was demanded of me, I don't believe academic education gives my viewpoints any more validity than anyone elses. I never claimed to have authority, and I think think it's unfair that that has been used against me.

No, you don't have the right to protest here. *You* were the won who brought up being a Sociologist as an appeal to authority. And then you did the same thing with your claim of years of Religious Studies followed by some degree or credential.

Now, if you had actually gotten any of the Bible story details right, then we might have assumed some credence to your claims Religious Studies. Similarly, if you had demonstrated some basic understanding of religion's role in society, then we might similarly have associated some weight to your claim as a Sociologist.

But you definitely raised those credentials to somehow make yourself appear to be more knowledgeable than your actual argument implied. Your failings to substantiate your credentials lie at your feet, and their exposure is more fair that how you're portraying those with any religious belief.

Greebynog wrote:-Religion is the antithesis of science. Science is coming to conclusions because of evidence. Religion is coming to conclusions because someone with authority told you, despite evidence, or a lack thereof.

No. Religion is believing in something despite a lack of evidence, and has nothing to do with dogma. Religion can be deeply personal, without any external authority involved.

Greebynog wrote:-John, I simplified the story, obviously, I'm sorry for getting the details wrong. It was clumsy of me,

I dunno, bro. You were so far off, it's like you were telling a different story.

Greebynog wrote:but there are a dozen other passages I could have chosen, including ones advising the murder of anyone who tells you not to believe in god, and the condoning of stoning adulterers.

In the last, I'm assuming that you're actually mistalking about Jesus' mercy toward sinners, rather than a "thou shalt not" passage from Leviticus. Although, with the previous bit, I'm leaning more towards Leviticus. You realise, of course, that Leviticus is pure Old Testament, and only literally relevant for Israelites thousands of years ago, right? And not even the 'sids follow the Leviticus of the Old Testament - they've had a few thousand years to refine the thought and meaning of these words.

And finally, you are aware that there is a New Testament, right? This was written roughly 2000 years ago, and marked a major shift in thinking. Forgiveness, not stoning adultresses and all that...

Greebynog wrote:The story of Lot shows clearly that men are regarded higher than women, and that homosexuality can be cured by rape. Nice stuff.

Um, *what*?!?

That isn't even *close* to what the story of Lot shows. Where are you getting this stuff from? Your "Religious Studies"?!?

I mean, I'm no fan of OR, but just making stuff up doesn't help your position in the least.

Greebynog wrote:I'm over this debate, it's become personal from some corners,

Fair enough, but just keep in mind that you're the one who made it that way.

That last comment I can't leave.

When? When did I make it personal? Your posts have largely been about attacking my character, ie the character of someone you've never met. My 'attacks' were all pointed squarely at orgnized religion, not it's followers, read over my posts.

Once again, I only mentioned my degree because I was asked to provide some sort of backing to my views, as if they wouldn't have mattered if I didn't. As for a GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education, nowhere near a degree) in religious studies, as I said, I think it's an irrelevance, and only mentioned it after being goaded into it, I now obviously regret ever mentioning anything about my background, and I don't think it matters anyway. It seems that I'm the only one who hasn't been obsessing on background and education, formal education has no bearing on your right to an opinion on anything, nor the right to think and to express yourself.

I'm honestly sorry for the anger that I've caused, so much bile has been thrown my way, and I have never personally attacked anyone, I apolgise if anything I wrote can be construed that way. I expressed my opinion on organized religion *that's it*. I didn't advocate stoning anyone to death because of their beliefs.

Anyway, the whole tone of this formerly civil and interesting debate has changed to make me look a bad guy for expressing an opinion. I never claimed to be perfect, but now I'm the forum prick, great.

I'm off to paint some toy soldiers.

Dude, maybe you don't see it that way, but from my perspective, you went and tarred and feathered the majority of the world's population by going after their religion. And then you kind of hold yourself out there as a martyr. So while you're not personally attacking people, you have taken the discussion in a personal direction.

So I'm very sorry that you don't like me pointing out what I saw as errors and inconsistencies. And I'm very sorry you saw it as an attack. I don't think it's an attack to point out those problems.

And as you appealed to your authority, from an argument standpoint, I don't think it's an attack to challenge that appeal to authority.

By analogy, if I were to claim special status in YMDC by dint of being a lawyer, yet grossly misstated Rules of Evidence, then having it pointed out is not an attack. It's valid counter to negate the special status.

So WRT attacking your character, I don't believe that to be the case. I'm only pointing out the inconsistencies in what you claim, vs what I understand.


To close, you have a right to your opinion, and nothing in my posts should be construed as trying to take that away from you. However, you make a lot of broad, yet unsubstantiated claims that probably ought to be clarified and better-supported if you intend people to understand your opinion.

I'm not angry, and I don't think you're a bad person, only that you argued poorly here.

That's cool, I understand that.

I really don't think it's a personal attack on the majority of the world, it's a challenge to their beliefs. I tried to make that clear, I apologise if I didn't.

Like I said, I didn't want to appeal to authority, I don't care for that sort of thing, it was a flippant response to an accusation of ignorance, and quickly became a very large part of this debate. It now looks like I was trying to boast and brag about my "superior education", something that I don't believe at all.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if you have the ability to back it up.

If you are talking about History and the person has a PhD in History it lends more weight to their opinion, much as trained Lawyer has more say on the law then a layman.

You also seem to be remembering this thread incorrectly. You were not goaded into saying anything you didn't want to and certainly no one asked if you had a degree. Even knowing you do hasn't really changed the earlier assessment of naiveté. You brought up your education as an argument on your own, do not try to put it on others.

Mod mode powers activate
All right locking this puppy. I summon the power of Kalifornia Governator



Everyones had fun and gets a cookie.