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.

dogma wrote:
As ever, you are wrong.

Hard headed and contrarian as ever.

I know you enjoy playing word games but unfortunately some people on here may think you are actually serious.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
I know you enjoy playing word games but unfortunately some people on here may think you are actually serious.

GG

Uh, I am serious.

What category does masturbation fit into, and what evidence do you have to support such a classification?

Orlanth wrote:
In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.

Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq? Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?

That's just one example of a religious person who did not deliver the best quality of public service.

Witzkatz wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.

Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq?

Umm... well... they used the same evidence that a few other countries that I can think of thought was pretty good, IIRC.

Witzkatz wrote:Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?

Source please.

A quick response since I'm late to the party again:

Monster Rain wrote:

Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.

That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?

Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.

What would the point be?

The bible points to evidence of god as being the works and deeds of his representatives in humanity. By using this evidence, I see no actuall reason to believe in an all-loving, omnipotent god. Also "disjointed non-sequitur" = you are a smart-ass.

Monster Rain wrote:

Lint wrote: By the same token, look at all of the misery and death that can be directly attributed to religioun, and arguments over "God."

I fail to see what that has to do with the philosophy of any given Religion... Bad people have done bad things, there's no argument there.

But these bad people are, by their own declaration, god's chosen representatives. So either god does not exist, he has extremely poor taste, or he doesn't really care. I understand that's a tripe "non-sequitur" but if it's in any way accurate, then it follows that if god exists, he doesn't really deserve to be pissed on while on fire.

Source please.

I wrote that as a question because I wasn't completely sure on that. I'll admit the possbility that the source I had it from months ago was biased and wasn't reporting objectively. I just searched the net a bit about the topic, but haven't found reliable sources for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vor allem der damalige Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, der Falke Paul Wolfowitz und Vizepräsident Dick Cheney hatten den Irak früh ins Visier genommen. Weil Cheney und Rumsfeld den meisten Geheimdiensten misstrauten, wurde Anfang 2002 im Pentagon eine Arbeitgruppe mit dem Titel "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) installiert, die sich selbst "the cabal" nannte. Das heißt "Intrige", und dieser Name war für die verschworene Truppe, die nur zwei Dutzend Mitarbeiter hatte, keine Übertreibung.

Aufgabe der Spezialabteilung war es, Beweise für eine Verbindung zwischen dem Diktator Saddam Hussein und Osama Bin Laden herbeizuschaffen und das Arsenal der angeblichen Massenvernichtungswaffen Saddams neu zu taxieren. Dabei hatten sie relativ freie Hand, denn seit dem Auszug der UN-Inspekteure verfügten die US-Dienste über keine eigenen Quellen mehr im Irak.

This is from a newspaper article in German, I'll try and translate as best as possible:

"Especially the defence minister at that time, Donald Rumsfeld, the falcon Paul Wolfowitz and vice president Dick Cheney had targeted Iraq early. Because Cheney and Rumsfeld mistrusted most secret services, a new task group with the title "Office of Special Plans" (OSP) was installed in early 2002, which called itself "the cabal", which translates to "intrigue". And this name was no exaggeration for the conspiring group that had only two dozen members.
It was the task of this special office to produce proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and to newly assess the arsenal of alleged WMDs of Saddam. They were allowed a lot of leeway with this, because since the retreat of the UN inspectors from Iraq, the US services had no sources of their own in Iraq anymore."

The phrasing "to produce proof" and what it was supposed to produce is interesting here. It sounds not like "Let's see who Osama's friends are", but more like "Let's see if we can find ANYTHING relating Osama to Saddam, so we have a reason to invade Iraq."

This has not that much to do with WMDs directly, but this implies that there was a plan to invade Iraq anyway and they were just searching for a nice reason to present the public with, however truthful that reason would be.


However, I'm not ignorant enough to assume that this article is infallible. There will be some articles that interpret the circumstances differently, while some will say everything was totally different. My opinion is that the whole reasoning for the Iraq War was shady at best.

Apart from that, this is really off-topic.

Witzkatz wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
In fact in local at least if not in national politics the honestly religious are often amongst the best quality public servants.

Didn't George W. Bush state that he believed he was led by God? And then went on to use forged reports about WMDs to lie to the public to start the war in Iraq? Didn't he even admit later that he knew there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, but continued to say so nevertheless?

That's just one example of a religious person who did not deliver the best quality of public service.

Key word highlighted.

Key word highlighted.

Aye, I see your point. What I was trying to say was, that it's awfully hard to tell the honest and dishonest people apart - and that honesty is probably a bigger and more important factor in becoming a good public servant than religion is.

Lint wrote:A quick response since I'm late to the party again:

Monster Rain wrote:

Lint wrote: Therefore I go by what I see, does it not say "And ye shall know them by their fruit" and also "I say unto you faith without works is dead." By examining the "fruit" and "works" of religion I can only conclude that it is a farce, and a joke, that does nothing to uplift or edify mankind.

That seems like a seriously disjointed non-sequitur to me. Maybe you could reword it so that I could respond?

Lint wrote: Name one good or noble thing that a religious person has done or caused to happen, that a non-believer is not capable of also achieving.

What would the point be?

The bible points to evidence of god as being the works and deeds of his representatives in humanity. By using this evidence, I see no actuall reason to believe in an all-loving, omnipotent god.

Only because you choose to focus on the negative events.

Lint wrote:Also "disjointed non-sequitur" = you are a smart-ass.

Meh. I'm sorry if my use of big words confuses you.

That was intended to be "good-natured ribbing" and nothing more, folks.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Clearly wrong and unbiblical. It would help to understand what you are critiquing if you wish to do so with such gusto.

He didn't say it was Biblical or Christian. Do not project your interpretation on to the words of others.

If you quote what I quoted you will read otherwise:

and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,

The words are pretty plain.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
No force was implied.

It doesn't have to be. As you demonstrated above, people will hear, or read, what they wish to.

That does not excuse or condone hysteria.

There are worlds of difference between
- I have an opinion
- You have a different opinion

and

- I hate your opinion
- I beleive that people with a different opinion should be restricted from opportunity..

dogma wrote:
We can also mock them for their stupidity. Nominally this involves discussing the ridiculousness of assuming a privileged stance due to agreement with a book some dudes wrote a long time ago.

...and/or abused.

Lampooning a religion should be a right under freedom of expression. Harassing people for their relgion, which is what you are actually advocating here - is a hate crime. This applies to all religions not just my own.
This is doubly relevant as relgion in itself is not 'stupid' beyond the opinions of bigots because neither religion nor the ability for people to draw strength comfort or benefit from religion has been disproven.
As there is strong evidence to the contrary at least in terms of some people benefiting materially or psychologically from joining a religion, thus doing so is not inherently 'stupid'. So not only assuming such but also mocking people because of such choices is ignorant bigotry at its worst.

I dont think I need to discuss this further with you. Back to the topic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:

Key word highlighted.

Aye, I see your point. What I was trying to say was, that it's awfully hard to tell the honest and dishonest people apart - and that honesty is probably a bigger and more important factor in becoming a good public servant than religion is.

My point included all faith choices.

So a straight up artheist/Moslem/Jew/Christian/Buddhist etc is more reliable than someone who plays the crowd in terms of thier principle beleifs. This is not to say the open speaking person could not be a fanatic, but it will hopefully show through if they are and people can vote accordingly.
I would not mind if my local elected representative did not share my faith, the only point my faith becomes relevant is - as in the case of the New Labour cronies I had representing me - disliked faith on a point of dogma. Alastair Campbells 'we do not do God' indicated the doctrine of a government that did a lot of harm. Wheras New Labour did not espouse atheism, and many on the Labour heiracrchy were not atheistic but just espoused an uneven and controlling attitude towards differing faiths.
It is no suprise that Tony Blair became a confirmed Catholic after he left office. I do not know or care if he is a genuine Catholic, what matters is that he was not the sort of person to stand up and be counted earlier. This is in keeping with his entirtely dishonest character.

A persons faith choice, whatever it is, is central to their thinking. To conceal it as a private citizen is a persons private concern, to conceal it as a public servant is our concern beause ones core beliefs affect what you beleive in in other areas. Someone who is honest about their faith choices can be trusted to be impartial because their choices can be isolated from their professional life. An elected public servant is elected to serve all constituents, and while they may vote with their own consciences they should be expected to advocate on behalf of those who have differing as well as similar life views. Those who mask their faith choices for tactical benefit include them in their political life and are as a result less impartial. The focus becomes less 'this is what I believe', than 'this is what it is best for the electorate to think I believe'.

Orlanth wrote:
If you quote what I quoted you will read otherwise:

and how you must abstain from lusting in order to gain entrance to paradise after you die,

The words are pretty plain.

Oh, sorry, I missed that part. Clearly he was referring to Islam, or perhaps Judaism, maybe Buddhism?

Very few things are plainly obvious. We only make them so by being blind to the alternatives.

Orlanth wrote:
That does not excuse or condone hysteria.

Did I say that it did?

Orlanth wrote:
There are worlds of difference between
- I have an opinion
- You have a different opinion

and

- I hate your opinion
- I beleive that people with a different opinion should be restricted from opportunity.

Where was the latter expressed? Rubiksnoob never stated that religious people should be barred from office.

Stop reading things that aren't there.

Orlanth wrote:
...and/or abused.

Lampooning a religion should be a right under freedom of expression. Harassing people for their relgion, which is what you are actually advocating here - is a hate crime.

First, I'm not advocating anything.


Second, were I advocating something, it would be mocking someone due to expressed stupidity. This is not harassment. Harassment would entail mocking someone continually, over time, for some stupidity they expressed in the past.

Stop reading things that aren't there. It reflects very poorly on you as a rational judge.

Orlanth wrote:
This is doubly relevant as relgion in itself is not 'stupid' beyond the opinions of bigots because neither religion nor the ability for people to draw strength comfort or benefit from religion has been disproven.

I didn't say that religion was stupid. I said that believing something because an old book is written about it is stupid. This does not preclude the notion that strength can be drawn from such a position. Stupidity is not tacit to weakness.

Orlanth wrote:
As there is strong evidence to the contrary at least in terms of some people benefiting materially or psychologically from joining a religion, thus doing so is not inherently 'stupid'. So not only assuming such but also mocking people because of such choices is ignorant bigotry at its worst.

Stop making inferences, you are very, very bad at it.

Connor McKane wrote:Religious intolerance Hating Nazis is exactly the same as intollerance against religion being a Nazi. If you argue that Religious types Nazis would be better off jumping off a bridge then you are EXACTLY the same as those you wont tolerate.

So really the argument is invalid.

Even with changes, this statement is equally valid.

Does that count as Godwin's Law?

But yes, to toss in my .02 cents, I just have to say that as someone who has gone through extreme Christian evangelism first hand, I have to say that the biggest fear I have with far right Christian's being elected into state offices is that they will begin to try and spread their belief system. We've seen this first hand with the rulings in Kansas that make the teaching of ID alongside evolution mandatory, or at least to teach that evolution is 'just a theory'. It also could easily mean the spread of abstinence only sex education.

However, this is not to say we should not vote for Christians. What I'm saying is that I would not personally vote for someone who has expressed overtly evangelical rules (especially one who fails to realize that separation of church and state is written into the Constitution).

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

I don't think it's a No True Scotsman situation.

There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

Who would want to get something that actually avoid people from having Teenage Pregnancies or adolescent sex??!?!?!

Asherian Command wrote:Who would want to get something that actually protects people from Teenage Pregnancies or adolescent sex??!?!?!

I should think everyone would want to avoid teenage pregnancies.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

I don't think it's a No True Scotsman situation.

There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

It also consists of giving all your worldly goods away to the poor. There are very few good Christians, it seems.

Fixed.

Laughing Man wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

I don't think it's a No True Scotsman situation.

There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

It also consists of giving all your worldly goods away to the poor. There are very few good Christians, it seems.

I've seen less accurate posts, but not many.

What? The bible isn't a valid guide to what Christians are supposed to believe?

Laughing Man wrote:What? The bible isn't a valid guide to what Christians are supposed to believe?

So what verse are you referring to?

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

I don't think it's a No True Scotsman situation.

There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

Define 'honestly religious' in a way that all religious people will agree with the definition. It is an ethereal concept and is also changing the goal posts again. "Did I say religious politicians? I meant honest religious politicians" is of a great example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

I don't think it's a No True Scotsman situation.

There really is a rather codified way that Christians are supposed to behave. You either fit the profile or you don't. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it seem.

Define 'honestly religious' in a way that all religious people will agree with the definition. It is an ethereal concept and is also changing the goal posts again. "Did I say religious politicians? I meant honest religious politicians" is of a great example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Okay, well in that context I think you're right.

But I think that as far as how a Christian should behave, a good rubric would be The Ten Commandments + the Beatitudes + the Golden Rule. Do all of them live up to it? Actually none of them do. It's why they nailed the man to the tree in the first place, to pay the price for people that could never live up to the standard.

I'm not disagreeing that person can be religious and a good politician, but that Orlanth's argument there was neither convincing or very sound. I don't think the argument can be made though that only religious people can be good politicians.

I could have used Osama bin Laden, but that's too close to the truth already.

Refusing to tolerate intolerance is not itself intolerance. It is the exact opposite.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I know you enjoy playing word games but unfortunately some people on here may think you are actually serious.

GG

Uh, I am serious.

What category does masturbation fit into, and what evidence do you have to support such a classification?

I think you're over thinking this one dogma. If you accept lust as a sin, then masturbation becomes a sin as an expression of lust. The quagmire comes when you try to define exactly how much lust and what you are lusting after becomes sinful.

dogma wrote:
Stop reading things that aren't there. It reflects very poorly on you as a rational judge.

Stop making inferences, you are very, very bad at it.

The only way I failed to infer correctly from your prior post is if you yourself didnt know what you were posting.
Come to think of it that may not too unlikely.

However I can only go by what was written, and when you write gak like 'We can also mock them for their stupidity', in the context you wrote it, then you can be expected to be called out over it.

Monster Rain wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:What? The bible isn't a valid guide to what Christians are supposed to believe?

So what verse are you referring to?

Matthew 19:24, among others.

Orlanth wrote:honestly religious

What about an honestly religious true Scotsman?

Laughing Man wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:What? The bible isn't a valid guide to what Christians are supposed to believe?

So what verse are you referring to?

Matthew 19:24, among others.

I think you have fundamentally missed the point of those passages, and I frankly don't have time to set you straight. Something tells me(your previous posts, mainly) that it would be futile anyway.

Maybe Orlanth or GG will have the patience to spell it out... /crosses fingers

Edit: Holy non-sequential posts, batman!