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.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:Yup. Cannot wait till the world ends and I no longer have to deal with stupidity of this caliber.

C'mon 2012! I'm waiting.

Exactly,at least then we'll have fun killing zombies instead of listening to stupid politicians :S

GeneralGrog wrote:seems like Gwar! is back in a new form

Err...Im pretty sure Gwar! Is Jewish.

Mattyrm wrote:mutilate her genitals with a knitting needle?

I've seen a video on the Internet of a man cutting off his balls. Does that count?

GG-I think Mattyrm achually has a valid point (this time), its silly that someone's religious beliefs could effect the life of someone else they have never met.

Ethnically Jewish, but an atheist.

I miss Gwar.

He will be back soon enough, about two weeks left of his ban, I think.

He claims he won't be back. Frankly can't blame the guy.

@GeneralGrog - You're a christian, aren't you? Forgive him then.

The gloves are getting ready to come off?

You just called me a bigot. I never called you any names.

Please, take the gloves off, smite me with your holy wrath so to speak. Im literally dying to hear what you have to say that will crush me so resoundingly.

I have had several PM chats with many of the believers on here, i dont think that anything i have to say is "bigoted" because i am a libertarian. I am happy with people doing whatever they want. As long as it doesnt affect me.

I wouldnt even say im a real Atheist. More like a agnostic with atheistic tendancies. I even have a healthy respect for the Church of England, with its progressive policies and pleasant, more subtle Religious ways. Female clergy for instance, a fine idea. Very fair.

I was baptised as a kid, i am not the kinda bloke to go and demand it gets "reversed" and i will happily attend a church for a wedding or such like, i even happily eat with the family at Christmas and buy my nephew a present.

But you and any your ilk should not be able to tell people you do not know and have never met, how they should live their lives, or that they have to live by any "rules" that your clergy decide upon.

Im happy for religious people to be religious, as long as it doesnt not affect my life. I dont mind one bit. If you want to praise Jesus all day, that is fine by me, if it doesnt have any affect on my life, then im all for it.

If you want to hate gays irrationally in the privacy of your own home, or demand that your own family members dont use contraceptives or get abortions, then that is absolutely fine too. If a family member wants to be given an overdose of a painkiller because they exist in unspeakable pain, and you want to tell them "sorry, its against God" then thats fine as well. Crack on.

But you guys are never happy with it are you? You have to come a knocking on my fething door and tell me what you think. You have to tell me that i am "evil" because i disagree with you. Have i ever knocked on anyones door and told them i think it is unlikely we have a supervisory authority? No.

I have no issue at all with most of the believers on here, because they arent militant with it. They believe what they want, and they dont try and force me to follow. It is fine.

I am happy for you to disagree with abortion, contraception, assisted suicide, whatever blows your metaphorical skirt up. AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT ME.

How often do religious sorts say "We think" or "Perhaps"

And we are the bigotted ones?

Getting called a bigot by you is like every single pot in the universe calling every kettle in existence black.

Please, remove the gloves, do it via PM if you really want to get down to business. Im all ears.

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:I dont want to get sidetracked by a massive religion debate........

Sure you do mattyrm.... that's why every other post of yours attacks religion in one way or the other. I can tell you I'm getting tired of it, and the gloves are getting ready to come off. I think I have been really restrained when it comes to your bigoted anti religious posts but it seems like Gwar! is back in a new form or something.

GG

I do have to agree with GG here. Dakka has a really nasty streak of people that really enjoy ragging on religion pretty much every chance they get. It's neither noble nor useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mattrym: the problem you have is that you forget that there are other reasons other than religious to, as you put it, tell other people what to do. Likewise, if libretarianism were your only motivating factor, then we'd expect a bit more variety in your screeds: taxes, governmental regulations, etc.

When you make a statement that pro life thought boils down entirely to religion, you paint a very complex issue with a very large brush. I'm not sure I'd call it bigoted, and you aren't the worst offender out here, but it wasn't the most astute comment.

As i said, i dont try to rag on "religion" i rag on religious people that try and force their opinions onto other people.

You can think that X is wrong, but you cant force everyone else to think it too.

I think that is a sizeable difference.

I genuinelly like many of the Relgious people on here because i know they are believers but they dont try to ram it home all day. My problem is with people telling me what is right and what is wrong, and as i explained in the whole "assisted suicide" thing. I feel very strongly about it for obvious reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

Albatross wrote:@GeneralGrog - You're a christian, aren't you? Forgive him then.

Of course I forgive. IN fact I have the love of Christ for mattyrm, however sometimes love needs to be tough. You wouldn't let a child get away with certain things, because you love them, otherwise they get spoiled. Similarly I feel compelled to "correct" mattyrm with his bad behavior when it comes to his attempts at mocking religion. Thats what I meant by gloves coming off.

The Bible says Be ye angry and sin not. It's not a sin to offer correction, or to be righteously indignant.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:The gloves are getting ready to come off?

They are officially off.... :-)

mattyrm wrote:
You just called me a bigot. I never called you any names.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

They didn't include religion but the principle is the same. You sir, are an intolerant "anti religious" bigot.

mattyrm wrote:
Please, remove the gloves, do it via PM if you really want to get down to business. Im all ears.

The time for pm is over. This needs to be taken care of in public forum so mods can intervene. Otherwise you will continue to spew your rhetoric without mercy.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand that your irrational rants are offensive to people of faith, and that just because you hide behind the "NO offense intended" card doesn't excuse it.

I've got to run..apologies for the rushed responce.
GG

Frazzled wrote:This is true, although they have us in the RPG department.

I think they take the LARP thing too far, though

mattyrm wrote:Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer. Yes, it's likely that the actions of pro life groups made Dr. Tiller a target that a clearly troubled guy fixated on, calling their tactics into question, but murder is several standard deviations away from even "aggressive" pro life activism.

As for the role of religion, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Religious principles might be the explanation for why a person is pro-life, but the reason I think is more political: desire to maintain the patriarchy. The two are conflated, to be sure, but I think the pro life movement is more motivated by anti-feminism than pure religious zeal.

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief. Sure its a ballpark figure, but I am pretty certain i am correct here, how many aggressive pro lifers (Scott Roeder for example who murdered Doctor George Tiller) are "agnostic"?

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer. Yes, it's likely that the actions of pro life groups made Dr. Tiller a target that a clearly troubled guy fixated on, calling their tactics into question, but murder is several standard deviations away from even "aggressive" pro life activism.

As for the role of religion, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Religious principles might be the explanation for why a person is pro-life, but the reason I think is more political: desire to maintain the patriarchy. The two are conflated, to be sure, but I think the pro life movement is more motivated by anti-feminism than pure religious zeal.

I can tell you with some authority that if it's about Oklahoma, then there's something about "strong christian values" involved and, yes, it's about religion. I was born here, I grew up here, I ran to Asia to get away from here, and like an idiot, I came back.

There's a church on every corner and they build new ones to stop someone from opening a bar, nightclub or other "unsavory" business (law states you can't have a "sin" business within a certain distance of a school or church). Spend any amount of time in Oklahoma and you'll ask, "why is there a church on every corner?"; it's not a joke, it's reality. I'm not saying religion is a bad thing, but in Oklahoma, religion is life for many people. Oh and there's a hug difference between a catholic and a hellfire and brimstone southern baptist, a huge HUGE difference.

Did I mention the giant shrine to christianity that's going to be planted on the lawn of the state capital? A 10 commandments statue; yes, here in the great land of Oklahoma, you can forget about separation between church and state.

GG. Define in what way my opinions are irrational?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

First off, it's hard to contend that you're arguing in good faith when you use an insane murderer as your example of a aggressive pro lifer.

Pol, the point i am making here is exactly that. I dont believe for a second that Dr Tillers murderer WAS insane.

mattyrm wrote:GG. Define in what way my opinions are irrational?

Calling people "God pests" is an irrational insult.
Calling someone who believes in creationism as being "slowed" is irrational.

To me a rational person may in fact disagree with a position that someone takes. When you take it to the level of insult and mockery like you do, you become irrational.

Why is it so hard for you to just accept the fact that people believe differently than you do and........WALK AWAY.......... take the low road.............. or whatever other cliche' you want to hang on it.

It helps no one to constantly harang a group of people because they believe or think differently than you do.

GG

A "Pest" is someone that bothers you, for example a fly can be a pest. If someone is knocking on my door when i dont expect it and is trying to force their opinions onto me and it happens to be about God, then i think they are a pest, ergo, a God pest. Whats irrational about that?

Lets not even get into Creationism. Needless to say i feel it has no evidence supporting it at all and it is a truly ridiculous subject, again, i dont see this as irrational..

Anyway, i concede, i may come across as a tad aggresive, but i think it is because people seem to afford this particular topic too much respect. As i said, i am by no means "militant" and i still write "C of E" when i fill out a form at work.

I will of course apologise if i have upset you. I do think the word "bigot" is a tad strong for me though, you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

Back on topic. I think the law is very unfair.

No one is right, everyone is wrong.

mattyrm wrote: you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

No I have, the internets are full of that kind of stuff. That's why I like dakka because that kind of thing is generally kept out of here.

thanks for your understanding.

GG

Orkeosaurus wrote:No one is right, everyone is wrong.

*Everyone starts shouting and fighting instantly*

Anyway, i concede, i may come across as a tad aggresive, but i think it is because people seem to afford this particular topic too much respect.

Thats not aggressive, at best it's arrogant or conceited, more realistically it's just somewhat tactless. Aggressive is when you tell people that they're wrong or press them on their opinions, not just make uninterupted snarky comments then stand behind the veil of an "enlightened" opinion on the subject.

I do think the word "bigot" is a tad strong for me though, you obviously havent met some of the more aggresive chaps that frequent forums!

big⋅ot  [big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Actually you do seem somewhat bigoted in terms of most religious discussions you enter, but then there are many varying levels of bigot as the definition doesn't really give the specific amount of intolerance that crosses the line into bigotry, nor is intolerance particularly well defined itself. I would say that you're pretty bigoted on the subject, but only insofar as you rarely support yourself when tearing down religion. You tend to classify all religions and religions through the lens of extremists or religious political agents, when such movements are more realistically a-political populist movements for underclass social wellbeing.

mattyrm wrote:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief.

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

To put it another way: removing Christianity from the equation is unlikely to alter the moral structure of the United States. No religion functions by literal divine mandate. Instead, the morality being advocated is proven through earthly experience. Any discussion of divinity is little more than phrase given to that function.

I can tell you that when I was an atheist(yes I used to be a dawkinsesque hardcore atheist) I was generrally opposed to abortion if the father was against it. I thought it was wrong for the woman to deny the baby if the father wanted it. That mentality was not one of religion.

Now that I am a Christian I believe it is the taking of a a life, and that belief is due to my understanding of the Bible.

So in short, I think mattyrm is partly correct, however he should have qualified his statement to make it a generality instead of so dogmatic.

GG

edit..I wanted to add that I don't agree with the shooting of abortion providers either.
edit..Also don't agree with "naming names" when it comes to women who do have an abortion.

I thought this forum had rules.

G

Tangents seem to be the way of the internet...

Green Blow Fly wrote:I thought this forum had rules.

G

BTW congrats on your tourney win.

GG

Thanks bro. It was very nice to finally meet you. By the way I am a Zen Buddhist. Try it you might like it. I am surrounded by Scientologists here in Florida. They exist so that the movie stars can have a tax break.

G

dogma wrote:

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

Faith IS the motivational element. Not the only one, but the main one. I have never met a single person who is disinterested in Religion who is as aggresively anti abortion as some religious groups are, and by extension, their followers. Many dont really agree with it, but none have the distaste for it that some people of faith do.

I do not think abortion is a good thing. I think that people should be responsible enough to use preventative measures, gak, im even up for making it harder and shortening the legal time it may be carried out (lets say 16 weeks)

But absolutely DEMANDING that the pregnant women is not given a say on the matter? You wont find many secularists who think like that. Even if they are Anti Abortion.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Pol, i am aware of course that there are other factors, but (especially in the USA) you have to concede that at least 90% of it is down to religious belief.

No I don't. In fact, I won't. The fact that a given set of beliefs are enshrined in faith does not imply that the faith itself is the motivational element. You can generalize the matter as one of religion, but then you're simply being inattentive.

To put it another way: removing Christianity from the equation is unlikely to alter the moral structure of the United States. No religion functions by literal divine mandate. Instead, the morality being advocated is proven through earthly experience. Any discussion of divinity is little more than phrase given to that function.

Strongly disagree here. Remove Judeo-Christian values from the US and you have very little moral structure remaining. Even the secular-humanist concept of a "universal morality" is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles and traditions (though they really don't like to see it that way). Fundamentally, the concept of self-interest is anathema to organized society without a well defined moral structure and for the last 1500 years or so, that morality has come from the Judeo-Christian tradition for Western civilization.

Other religions also provide a moral framework similar in various important respects to Judaeo-Christianity.

So does Humanism.

100% agree on the importance of morality and other religions. Hinduism has a complex morality system that defines how the better part of South Asia operates. A mix of Taoism and Confuciansim, coupled with Buddhism, help define South-West Asia, China and Japan. All of them are completely viable morality systems. But I don't think any of them would easily or effectively fill the morality void in the US if you removed the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Humanism, on the other hand, I do not think would exist without Judeo-Christian tradition. The Western concept of equality is deeply rooted in the traditions of the early Church. Humanism itself originated completely inside the Judeo-Christian context and its ultimate goal of human flourishing, and the means advocated to achieve it, are rooted in Judeo-Christian values and principals. I'm not demeaning it, but I think its an attempt to have Judeo-Christian ethics without the Judeo-Christian God and that it can't be seperated out as a seperate morality system.

This would be true if Judeo-Christian was around from the year dot. What about Ancient Greece, the Egyptians, Celts, Ancient Roman? Didn't they have laws in place that would of been similar to those promoted by Judeo-Christian? The laws laid down by Judeo-Christian would of not been known by the rest of the world until "Christianity" started spreading out across the world, so the rest of the world would off had something in place before them. Isn't that how civilisations arise?