Should we move to ban believers?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by universaldistress, Mar 13, 2011.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Perhaps eventually

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No, but the definition fits and it makes conversation easier here. Besides, I don't find the term 'atheist' to be offensive.

    Fear? Isn't that a wee bit strong?
    To me they are just a nuisance (not all of them of course just the few that insist on being in your face all the time).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    My apologies if that post was uncomfortable for you. I did not mean anything by it.
    By "seeker", do you mean agnostic?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It wasn't uncomfortable. I wonder why you'd think it could be?


    No. There is an overlap between "seeker" and "agnostic", but agnosticism is a passive position (one simply doesn't know, or is convinced that things cannot be truly known, and sits on that), while being a seeker is something active ("Yes, things can be known, with the proper effort").
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I just realized it might have come across as accusatory.

    A Weak agnostic who is determined to find answers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Wrong. You're just confusing my points and twisting them to fit some sort of philosophical structure which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.



    My point was obvious. The laws of man outweigh the laws of God.




    It's common enough for society to work together to prevent it.




    Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you ever observed and spoken to their population? National identity itself has very little to do with their ideologies. The majority is religion whether you like to admit it or not. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've talked to militants, peaceful civilians, and government officials in Iraq and ALL of them agreed that religion was the main cause of the violence. Trying to scapegoat this and saying otherwise is an insult to the innocent victims that fell prey to the hands of the religious extremists.

    You can find the same information everywhere on the web. It's called Google.com and wikipedia.com. Try them some time instead of being stuck in an 1700's philosophy class in your head.

    Now you are just being ignorant.

    "While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world,[9] and became notorious internationally for their treatment of women.[10] Women were forced to wear the burqa in public.[11] They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an.[10] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[12]"
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law Read... it will do you some good.

    Dude, I'm not lumping everyone that believes in religion in the same catagory. Stop thinking I am. Like I've said before, there are good, moral religious people that do not condone violence or extremism. I'm not going to say it again; your generalizations are becoming old.




    You haven't proven anything... at all. You've only generalized the discussion in the attempt to avoid even recognizing my points. I've made very legit points, none of which you've given a direct answer to or even simply acknowledged. If I were to even say that the sky was blue, I'm sure you'd come back and say, "Well, who knows that its blue? Is it blue because you think it is? What if your blue is my green? What if blue really is green? What is color anyway?"



    Sigh... I'm resigning from this discussion with you. I'm tired of metaphorically opening the dictionary only to find that the only language it comes in is Swahili, and I don't know Swahili. Furthermore the damn dictionary is written in a mixed up code. And when you finally do figure out the language and code and you go to look up the definition of the word "apple", it tells you, "Water flows counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere". I'm not going to do this "one point at a time". It's a waste of time.

    And take it as an insult if you want, I don't care, but until you get your head of of this ancient philosphical state and start paying attention to reality, good luck having any successful discussions here. You may be some incredibly intellegent and well-educated person who just took one too many philosophy classes and lost touch with reality or you may just be some kid who thinks he sounds smart. I have no idea nor do I really care. But for the sake of holding debates and discussion, unless it's against Stilpo -who also thought in such vague relativism - it's unlikely many will follow you. Some of the brightest and most admirable members we have here have admitted at one point or another that they have absolutely no clue where you're going or what you're saying in a discussion. So, my advice: re-evaluate your tactics, answers questions directly and for God's sake, lay off the thesaurus!
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2011
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Did you mean to tell him - "Get in line with my desires, because I rule here!" -?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Hardly. He can do whatever he wants. I'm just making a mere recommendation for the betterment of all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    a public forum is only a few places that the absurd aspects of theism or religion can be exposed for what they are and also pass that info onto others.

    in real life, theists have the upper hand simply because they will not be questioned or if the argument does not go their way, they will simply leave, lie or whatever with impunity. i mean really, what can you do? nothing. anyone can do this.

    in a forum like this, because there are more people who do know the difference between opinion, facts, hypothesis, and theory they don't get away with winning an argument based on just belief alone, power of numbers or other tactics that can be used.
     
  12. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    A good debate will always reduce it down to belief. And belief being such a wholly unprovable stance will always be defeated by logic.
     
  13. Imperfectionist Pope Humanzee the First Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    How does logic work exactly? Is it logical to follow a hunch? If personality is an effective metaphor, is it not logical to believe?
     
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Interesting.

    Ever studied Schopenhauer's Art of being right?
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I'm not sure what brought this on.

    All I asked was for you to clarify your comments
    actually its more of a head case when one tends to bandy around the word "reality" while having a devout reluctance to venture anything philosophical, ancient or otherwise.
    :shrug:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you want to lodge an argument of pure logic devoid of belief, all that you are left with is mathematics

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,164
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Everybody knows that in order to be normal, one must not wonder about things such as "What is real?".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2011
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Which wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't have such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what isn't ...
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,164
    And I guess that leaves you with the problem of trying to actually explain why it would be a problem, given that there is always the option of assigning no value whatsoever. :shrug:
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,164
    So sayeth those with such a dogmatic insistence to rant about what they think is...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you are opting for assigning no value, you are simply talking about 1+1=2 without ever saying whether its 1 ton or 1 proton or 1 universe.
    (edit - actually you can say 1 ton, since that is also an abstract construct - you just can't say what it is 1 ton of)
     

Share This Page