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.

Orlanth wrote:The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans. Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.

Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.

The memorial was for ALL fallen veterans but only christian iconography was represented.

Orlanth wrote:
Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.

I asked for proof, you provided none. Fail.

Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.

Slavery was an ancient economic reality. If Hebrews were to practice it here were the caveats they had to jump through, a time of emancipation and naturalisation is part of the deal (Year of Jubilee). God would prefer you didn't take slaves though, this is evident throughout the Bible, and the Koran too.

As for cross referencing that with condemnation of homosexuality, the two subjects don't connect, and are not weighted against each other..

I asked for a good answer, you provided none. Fail.

Slavery was an economic reality? That condones its morality?

Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.

In order:
Because Religion kills more than it saves. (I personally fall into the freedom of camp, but I'm answering a question)
Reason is not faith, reason will change its view when provided with new evidence.

Slavery is not a current biblical tenet, certainly not of Christianity which uses the New Covenant to complete the old. Slavery is technically 'acceptable' in the New Testament. The Epistles teach that a slave should not become a rebel. However freedom should be eagerly sought, so, long as it is done legally. In effect slavery is not acceptable, but it must be removed through legal means, not sedition. the New Testmant argues that human law is corrupt, but that doesn't mean we should use corruption to fix it. aka suffer a bad law rather than do wrong.
Judaism still revers the Pentateuch in an un-upgraded from, so the question of Biblical slavery is best put to them.

Not a "current" tenet? Then by that logic neither should homophobia be. "Slavery is not acceptable," when it clearly states in the Old Testament that it is. Fail.

Actually its not a matter of balance its a matter of citation. If the program is a history lesson the lesson should be sourced. Which contemporary sources claimed that baptists werre horswehipped in meets, and for that matter which contemporasry sources claimed relgios meeting occured in the Capitol with as sitting President present.

So everything said should be provided with a citation? I'm guessing you don't watch many documentaries, because that's not how it works, if you doubt something look it up for yourself.

Those were liberal preachers, with arguments against flying the flag. That of itself is not a definition of level headed, which is based on presentation rather than content. There cant be no effective conservative christian apologists in North Carolina, I know there are, some of the speakers in the southern states are very effective orators and do not appear the least bit fanatical. You might not agree with what they believe, but they can put it across well. None of those interviewed could, unless chosen to speak for the other side..

Oh so you want level headed that agree with you, rather than level headed.

Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'. There have been calls by atheist fanatics to ban religion, or head towards phasing out religion. Which is ominous as there will always be people who want to believe so how would it be phased out.
If you disagree with an atheist fanatics agenda, or find it personally illogical, I will freely accept a claim that you have no common moral ground with them. Do a google search on something like 'ban religion' see what you find.
However they do exist. I myself have seen persecution and been abused for holding to my religion, once by Moslems and at least three times by atheists. You can count that as one occurance as it was the same atheists each time. More seriously In knew a woman street preacher who was stabbed to death in my hometown because she would not renounce her faith. The perpetrator was anti-religious, not an Islamic or some such. I met her an hour before she died, I was one of the last people to speak to her.
I will admit this experience is unusual, martyrdoms are very rare in the modern west.

Stalin? Name of reason? Had nothing to do with the Church being a threat to his power? Fail.
So you have been "persecuted"? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and frankly so vauge that it's simply a waste of time even mentioning.
A preacher got stabbed to death in the street in Britain? Got a link to that?

So you have provided not a shred of proof which I asked for. Fail, must try harder.

KingCracker wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

dæl wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways

That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?

btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.

OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.

As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.

So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.

So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.

So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.

Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.

And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.

While I agree with some points, most of your points fall to political garbble, more then religion. Those areas your talking about are HEAVILY Christian areas, and so surprisingly, the politicians do whatever their constituents want them to do. Weird I know. Heres some numbers

According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly

The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College

Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc.), collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply

So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.

I was merely refuting your earlier statement that religious groups/people don't "tell people what to do and how to act."

Also yes they are political issues, but issues that have their root in organized religion.

Not every religious person is as open minded and tolerant as you profess yourself to be KC, more's the pity.

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans. Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.

Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.

The memorial was for ALL fallen veterans but only christian iconography was represented.

I personally agree with taking the flag down, heres why. The memorial is about what they did for our country. They served and died for this country, and TBH that has nothing to do with what the believed in if you ask me. There is only 2 ways to make this argument fair for all parties intended.

1. Find out what the religious beliefs for all the names on that memorial, and add their flags to the monument.
OR
2. Remove the religious flags and keep it about the veterans.

So the easiest path is to remove one flag. The families know what they believed in, they died knowing what they believed in. So why should it be a big deal to have the flag up or not up. Our country AND EVERYONE IN IT needs to learn tolerance of others. Instead of making such a huge stink over it, just suck in that bottom lip and deal with it. Not everyone is like you and has your same ideology. Show some tolerance and we can get along a lot easier that way, not everything needs to be taken so personal.

What if the there was an anti religion thread and no one attempted to rebut it . Would it still be annoying?

Ayup

Orlanth wrote:
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.

That assumes all atheists support the removal of religion (From what I'm not sure, society?), which is an awful assumption.

Orlanth wrote:
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.

This assumes that atheism is a faith choice. It can be, but it isn't by necessity.

We've been over this dozens of times, but the absence of belief in X is not belief in the absence of X.

Orlanth wrote:
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the theread. these questioons have come up on Dakka before anyway.

Because you asked them and subsequently had it shown that they weren't difficult questions, and that the fact you believe them to be is indicative of a very poor grasp of what atheism is.

There was a thread a few days ago about why some people want to class atheism as a religion.

dæl wrote:
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'.

No, he killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.

dogma wrote:

dæl wrote:
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'.

No, he killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.

*cough... Might want to check who said that chap.

kronk wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I never bashed the religious, I said what I think of creationists that are in a majority in the US. see the difference?

Creationists are not a majority in the US. Would you care to back that up with a citation?

Did you not check out the poll I sourced in the same post?

but as of the last poll 46% are creationists,
32% belong to a religion and think god is driving evolution.
15% say evolution happens without god.

hey look a majority of creastionists.

#2 can fall under #1. STATISTICS FAIL

Frazzled wrote:#2 can fall under #1. STATISTICS FAIL

What, so it's actually 78%?

Frazzled wrote:#2 can fall under #1. STATISTICS FAIL

Reading Fail.

Read the poll and how the questions were asked. You live in the land of creationists.

One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail

Frazzled wrote:One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail

We could, but I prefer the "the universe is nothing but the figment of a giant dreaming Persian cat's imagination" theory myself. Has about the same level of truth but is allot more cool!

Frazzled wrote:One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail

The options were
*Humans evolved with God guiding.
*Humans evolved, but God had no part in this.
*God created humans in present form.

Frazzled wrote:One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail

Did you read it? did you miss the "in the last 10,000 years" part?
"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
"While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,"

so are you a young earth creationist frazz?

It could stil be evolution, just a lot faster

Mannahnin wrote:Ensis, you're repeating the smokescreen arguments of the religious people who promote abstinence-only sex ed. Those are there only to provide the appearance of a non-religious basis; just like Intelligent Design is purely a mask for Creationism.

While it's true that if you don't have sex it's much harder to get an STI or get pregnant, in point of fact abstinence-only sex ed leads to higher rates of pregnancy and disease. Because a substantial percentage of kids do it anyway, and if you don't teach them about safer sex practices, or worse, lie to them (as many of the abstinence-only curriculums and teachers do) about condoms and other methods being unreliable, you set them up for trouble. Check out the CDC statistics. It's one of life's terrible ironies that folks who demonize sex and adopt a zealously-protective attitiude toward kids on this issue actually do more harm to them.

I went to a public school, so it was taught that "abstinence is the only SURE way"... but I had a cool teacher, who actually demonstrated for the "benefit" of everyone, how to properly use a condom (on a piece of produce, you sick people!), as the state also required the teaching contraceptives... At the time, it was just that the state's stance was, "we should teach high school aged kids about contraceptives, but also reinforce the notion that not doing any funny business is the best route to follow" did it work??? Feth NO!!! I would honestly say that at least 1/3rd of the females who walked across the graduation stage with me, either had a significant baby bump, or were at least known to be currently pregnant (hell... one actually went straight to the hospital for delivery as soon as we were released from the ceremony)



@Orlanth, from what I gathered in the video, the flag in question was not a grave marker sized flag... rather I think it was that 20 foot flag pole with the flag that's the same size as the US and service flags flying alongside.... And the initial vet brought up valid issues. It was a public site, paid for by public funds, therefore no single religious icon should be shown, or at least not shown in favor of another (that whole, if you have to show one, you need to show them all sorts of things). It would make sense to me to have a small hole placed in each service member's marker stone, so that a small flag may be placed (you know those really small ones that kids usually get to wave at parades? theyre about 4x6 or so in size?)

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of religion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.

That assumes all atheists support the removal of religion (From what I'm not sure, society?), which is an awful assumption.

Many forms of atheism require just that, thus ther quesrtion is fair. Asking a Moslem if jihad is acceptable is a fair question despite the obvious truth that some are jihadists, others are not. There are equal questions posed to Christians which Christians do not find unfair, asking a Christian if homophobia is justifiable for example. Some agree, some don't.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.

We've been over this dozens of times, but the absence of belief in X is not belief in the absence of X.

Irrelevant, because no matter whether your claim a disbelief or claimed absence of belief you nevertheless make a faith choice as no proof is given.
Besides as stated over the dozens of times, unless you are ignorant of th concepts of religion the question has already been formulated.
Also as all of the proponents of the argument do so with some gusto a heart response has already been invoked. A fully detached atheist apologist cannot logically exist

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the thread. these questions have come up on Dakka before anyway.

Because you asked them and subsequently had it shown that they weren't difficult questions, and that the fact you believe them to be is indicative of a very poor grasp of what atheism is.

Trying to guess the inside of my mind again dogma, please stop, you are very bad at it.
As for the questions, I had not yet critiqued the answers.

Should I even be bothering responding further to you.

dael wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.

I asked for proof, you provided none. Fail.

See for yourself. Check Off Topic. You know how the search function works? You need me to hold your hand?

dael wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.

I asked for a good answer, you provided none. Fail.

I told you where to look, to see for yourself. I have better things to do than provide a ream of links. Would you check them if I did? I have learned the hard way its sometimes not worth putting in the extra effort if the question is closed.

dael wrote:
Slavery was an economic reality? That condones its morality?

In the ancient world, probably. God speaks peoples language. Same God, same principles but talking to different peoples. You might not be aware but humans thought and acted completely differently to how they do today back 3000 years ago.
God's morals are absolute, human morals are not. Much of the Old Testament is about concessions. I would prefer this, but as you are weak you can get away with that.

dael wrote:
Q. Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
A. Because Religion kills more than it saves. (I personally fall into the freedom of camp, but I'm answering a question)

Does it now. Care to back that up. You may have heard of Torquemada, but have you heard about the many monks and priests who did not agree with or have anything to do with brutality like the Spanish inquisition. No, they dont make a big name, and notoriety speaks louder than fame, let alone quiet service.
Relgion does not kill more than it saves, the amount of people who claim to be part of a faith and those who kill in honour of that faith are widely disproportionate.
Even in Islam. Jihadists are a minority, a minority not dealt with, but a minority nonetheless, and I am reluctant to match Islam with other faiths.

If religion kills millions, it saves billions. Frankly I wouldnt go that far. The majority of religious people need not be actually 'saved' so we can cut the billions comment down to sizedown. Meanwhile those abusing religion to kill rarely do so out of honest relgious motives, utlimately it comes down to politics. If religion can be used a political tool to kill, and religion is to be blamed for it then this also accounts for communist atheist atrocities including Stalin and his brand of atheism. Its all for political end, so if some can be laid at the door the others can and Soviet atheism would have to logically join the Crusades, and modern Jihadism as amongst the bloody politico-religious choices man should be warned of.

dael wrote:
Q. Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
A. Reason is not faith, reason will change its view when provided with new evidence.

Does it now? Actually it very often doesn't. So many times a new scientific theory is proposed and proported well yet many scientists reject it, because it goes against established thought, that is to say prefered though, thought they are used to. Do not underestimate a humans minds desire for continuency. even in areas of pure science personal preference can get in the way of logic.
One of the most dangerous bugbears within atheism is the idea that is is 'rational' and open to scrutiny. For some it may be, but a faith can be like that also. However humans may hold onto a 'reasoned' theory like a dogma.
Best example of this is the tale of the fall of the Pythagroean brotherhood. So this omne goes back to ancient Greece. The brotherhood fell apart because a young scholar kept on asking about the square root of two, an irregular number, wheras the pervading thought of the brotherhood was based on Pythagoras's theorems which show an order to mathematics that irregular numbers were an aberrance. So in order to shut out the dissenting voice the student was murdered. This put an end to the brotherhood as they understood that even a fraternity of pure reason was susceptible to wishful thinking.
If subjects like mathematics can get heated due to personal ideology how much more something where man has a vested soul interest, like atheism. Of course this is true of religious choices too, but everyone can see that, the bias inherent in human choice of atheism is the same but often overlooked.

dael wrote:
Not a "current" tenet? Then by that logic neither should homophobia be. "Slavery is not acceptable," when it clearly states in the Old Testament that it is. Fail.

Actually in the New Testament is calls for freedom from slavery. Also Gods principles of allowing free will of itself indicates that slavery is not wanted, just a part of life at the time.
God doesn't change his mind, just brings the relationship to a new level. So this is why God can concern the eating of snakes in the old Testament yet tell Peter to eat them in the New. its not as contradiction but as progression of understanding.
At first you may do this, you must do that , you cannot do the other. Can change to you ought to do this, you just so that, you can do the other because you now understand why.
You have to look at the Bible outide the limitations of literalism. Literalism is why some people cant get beyond the seventh day advent, wheras there are passages in the Bible itself which strojgly indicate that it is a parable and not to be taken literally. Even to the points of a divine day meaning a thousand years, which itself means a 'long time'. So the creation, from gods perspective could mean seven 'long times' from the perspective of a being that is timeless and 'sees the end from the beginning'. Why should Genesis 1 be looked at literally and from a human perspective if it describes existance prior to man and is from a divine perspective.
Bible is deep, and needs to be read that way if you want to critique it.

dael wrote:
So everything said should be provided with a citation? I'm guessing you don't watch many documentaries, because that's not how it works, if you doubt something look it up for yourself.

Fair enough, then check the references given rather than expect me to provide linked while crying 'fail'.
On the other hand an actual documentary TV program should contain sources if it goes into history.

dael wrote:
Oh so you want level headed that agree with you, rather than level headed.

I want level headed representatives of both sides, nothing to do with agreeing wirth me. In fact I posted i was against flying only the CVhristian flag there on a post before you wrote that. So its not 'agreeing with me', its looking for fair reporting.

dael wrote:
Stalin? Name of reason? Had nothing to do with the Church being a threat to his power? Fail.

Point is atheism was used as the methodology, as was reason. that sadly is the truth. Now Stalin might not be a good atheist, but likewise a reasonable Christian would disoen Torquemada. Still catholicism in general is blamed for the actions of some. If this is fair then look at atheist communism. Stalin is just the tip. Cghristians, and for that matter a lot of other religions had it bad under communism. Stalin is just a single simple example.

dael wrote:
A preacher got stabbed to death in the street in Britain? Got a link to that?

Seeing as she was a personal friend who was stabbed several times, I find that offensive. I was not posting that as evidence, just a background story. I don't have to show citation for you. Besides IIRC is never hit the press, stories like that get suppressed real quick.

dael wrote:
So you have provided not a shred of proof which I asked for. Fail, must try harder.

We are looking for proof are we, to possibly the single most important question in the history of humanity, on a gaming forum. Not asking much are you. You ask questions that demand long answers and asll you can come up with is half backed cries of 'fail'. If youn want a discussion you can have one, but repect the post and think about your replies, put some depth into it to make it worth my time.

If I had 'proof' I would be too busy collecting major awards to speak here. Proof either way, is something you want find. I think that is just how God wants it.

I think I see what is going on.

Creationists are the single largest group in that poll.

In america we call the largest group of a sample the plurality. If the largest group outpolls all the other groups combined (50% plus one) than it is the majority.

I believe other english speaking parts of the world use majority for the largest group and supermajority for 50% plus one.


So to an american interpreting this poll, those who believe in the evolution origin, whether guided or not, are closer to the majority than those who believe in a creation origin.

Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.

So a search of the OT section will find people calling for religion to be banned? I don't think so, I have contributed to most of these threads recently, and have seen no such thing.

Yes, I would check any links you provided, you didn't, neither did you give a good answer as to why slavery is moral and homosexuality is immoral.

Gods morals are absolute, but change over time? Yeah, I don't think you quite understand the concept of absolute, or morality.

Yes religion kills more than it saves, millions have died and still do because of religious wars and the AIDS epidemic, there will have been some people whose religious beliefs have caused them to show mercy, but these people would probably have had a decent moral compass regardless. Name a person who was saved by Religion.

Yes reason does change its view, look at the ever increasing expansion of the universe, was discovered not that long ago, now the Big Crunch theory has gone and we expect on current evidence that the Heat Death of the Universe will be what happens.

Again, moral relativism from a code of absolute morals. It is also an analogy, ok, so allowing slaves and genocide was an analogy for what exactly?

Ok you want sources, that isn't how films work but you keep wanting stuff.

It doesn't occur to you that one side might only have nutters on it because it's morally reprehensible?

Stalin studied to be a priest, he understood the power of religion and how it was a threat to his rule, that he hapened to be an atheist is irrelevant. His motivation was power, not the furthering of reason and the ethics of the Enlightenment.

The press suppressed it!? Do you have a tin foil hat by any chance? I'm sorry that you lost a personal friend but the story as you put it doesn't sound believable, and claiming it was suppressed makes it more unbelievable.

I didn't ask for proof of the existence of a deity, I asked for proof of "militant atheists" and that the Bible's morality is superior to the morality that is conventionally held by 21st Century civilised societies. Now that isn't that difficult is it?

Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.

This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.

You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.

Orlanth wrote:
Many forms of atheism require just that, thus ther quesrtion is fair. Asking a Moslem if jihad is acceptable is a fair question despite the obvious truth that some are jihadists, others are not. There are equal questions posed to Christians which Christians do not find unfair, asking a Christian if homophobia is justifiable for example. Some agree, some don't.

I don't know of any forms of atheism that require anything, its hard to require things when there is no one, or no thing, there to do the requiring. Unless you're positing that something like communism is a form of atheism. That's wrong of course, but not beyond you. In fact I think you've done it before.

But, assuming they exist, you'll note I never said it was an unfair question, I said it wasn't a hard question. There are many answers to it, most of them very easy. The first that comes to mind is that the removal of religion need not be morally superior to anything to be desirable. The question is only hard if you're arguing that atheism is morally superior to theism of all kinds, which not all atheists do. If you're going to ask a pointed question, you need to know you're pointing it at.

As to Muslims, that's a really, really easy question and the answer is "Yes." A hard question would be "What is Jihad?"

Orlanth wrote:
Irrelevant, because no matter whether your claim a disbelief or claimed absence of belief you nevertheless make a faith choice as no proof is given.

No, that's completely wrong. You don't make a faith choice when you do not believe that a thing exists, indeed that's the very essence of the distinction. If no proof is given, and I do not believe, I am not taking anything on faith. Instead I am aware of the absence of proof.

You are, as ever, clumsily trying to force a false dichotomy.

Orlanth wrote:
Besides as stated over the dozens of times, unless you are ignorant of th concepts of religion the question has already been formulated.

The question you asked?

There is no reason for morality to enter into it as the real issue is one of truth value, not the good, the right, or whatever particular ethical moray you want to reference.

If you mean the question of "Is there a God?" then a perfectly acceptable answer is "I don't believe so, but I don't know." which represents an appreciation of the lack of evidence without committing to an explicit belief on the level of certainty.

Orlanth wrote:
Also as all of the proponents of the argument do so with some gusto a heart response has already been invoked. A fully detached atheist apologist cannot logically exist

But the "heart response" doesn't need to be related to the actual question. For example, I don't have these arguments because I have any feeling regarding God/not God, I have them because they amuse me as most of the participants make really bad arguments.

So, yes, they can "logically" (You meant rationally, unless you intended to make a circular argument.) exist.

Orlanth wrote:
Trying to guess the inside of my mind again dogma, please stop, you are very bad at it.

I'm not guessing at anything, I'm interpreting your past behavior relative to this topic.

Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.

This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.

You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.
[/quote

Agreed. Whats interesting is that we keep getting drawn into these threads. Its like we can't help ourselves.

Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.

This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.

You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.

Maybe you should though, at least look up what athiesm is, and realize that one does not equal many.

Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.

This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.

You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.

I've misread nothing deliberately,

You claimed dakka's OT section was full of people calling for religion to be banned - Lie
You claimed that God didn't really mean what he said about slaves, because he was allowing for our flawed nature - Based on what? The fact it's said so now? It wasn't then. Which is right?
You claimed that religion has not killed more people than its mercy has allowed to live - I have no facts on this, but its quite obvious that interpretations of scripture have caused untold suffering and still do.
You claimed he reason doesn't change its view when presented with evidence - Blatant falsehood.
You claimed Stalin was attempting to further reason - You either don't understand what happened or are trying desperately to find a justification for your argument.
You claimed yourself persecuted but provide no details.
You claim a murder was suppressed from being reported - That doesn't happen in Britain, if it did would we know of Dr Kelly?

Essentially every point you made was either a falsehood or a shaky justification based on a tenuous connection.

Dael you're right. Every one of your statements is correct.
Now what?

Frazzled wrote:Dael you're right. Every one of your statements is correct.
Now what?

It's Miller time!