[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:45 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 06:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  He makes a case for religion being, on balance, a negative to humanity.
So, yes, he says we'd be better off without it. The means he advocates is education.

Power and control were their goals, stomping on religion was merely one of the means.

I hear this assumption a lot, but if atheism was just a pretext for the League of Militant Atheists, whose explicitly stated goal was the abolishing of religion, I wonder why no one ever calls religion just a pretext for other religiously oriented nationalist and cultural groups incorporating parallel mechanisms and techniques.

The LoMA was established by the Communist Party. Their being anti-religious had everything to do with the competition for power that religion posed to the party.


Dipshit.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:05 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:11 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is the problem with deluded people when all is said and done they insist that everyone else has a problem.

We all have problems. I'm not free from problems by any stretch of the imagination, and I've apologized multiple times on this website for some of those problems. You and I both know I'm not deluded, though, and I don't appreciate the insult.

(06-01-2014 05:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This entire derail is to escape from issues Mak cannot and will not address.

No, this entire derail was because I made a simple point and a bunch of people didn't want to acknowledge it, so they tried to challenge me. The simple fact is that many atheists challenge and fight against religion for its perceived dangers to society, but give a pass to alcohol despite being demonstrably many times more dangerous to society. That's being hypocritical, and so far no one has bothered to directly engage the point. Instead they hack away furiously and impotently at the rhetorical branches.

(06-01-2014 05:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There is no merit to this discussion it is at best a non sequitor and more likely a red herring to get us away from questions he knows he can't answer.

It has nothing to do with getting away from other answers. It was a simple point on which everyone crawled out of the woodwork to challenge me. The point stands, and as soon as you or anyone else is ready to move on, let's have it.

Many people challenge and fight things knowing that there are more important things that can be fought. That's not hyocritical, that's just picking your fight. Do you say the same thing to those fighting poverty? If not, why not?

I don't see it as giving a pass to anything, and I am pretty sure that we all know the dangers of alcohol, but if everyone just fought that one issue at the exclusion of all others then we'd be in a right pickle.

I would like to know who you think gives a pass to the problems associated with alcohol. I can't imagine anyone does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like joben1's post
06-01-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:56 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  I believe any Mormon is delusional.

An empty and intelligence-insulting rhetorical jab.

It's spot-on.

Quote:
(06-01-2014 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  And Muslims, and Christians, ...
"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. "

Good old Wikipedia. In reality, delusion is a pathology and is not nearly as simple as just changing your mind, and yet completely rational people enter and leave Mormonism all the time because of simple changes of mind. I suggest you actually study the psychology of religion, conversion, leave-taking, etc., before presuming to diagnose entire faith communities you've never met from behind your keyboard just because you find it has some rhetorically [sic] zing.

I suggest you study the psychology of believing in fairy tales and obvious superstitions and shit snake oil salesmen tell you before you begin your (hopefully honest by then) examination of the reasons you believe that magic-underwear, golden-book-no-one-can-see horseshit.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:11 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:56 PM)maklelan Wrote:  ...just because you find it has some rhetorically zing.

*rhetorical zing. I'd offer more cover, but you were picking on the witch. Tongue

What the heck we arguing about anyway? Alcohol? That cannot be right... Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
06-01-2014, 07:18 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  Many people challenge and fight things knowing that there are more important things that can be fought. That's not hyocritical, that's just picking your fight. Do you say the same thing to those fighting poverty? If not, why not?

It's one of the huge social problems that largely gets a pass in the western world, and I do make a point of highlighting it when social responsibility comes up.

(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I don't see it as giving a pass to anything, and I am pretty sure that we all know the dangers of alcohol, but if everyone just fought that one issue at the exclusion of all others then we'd be in a right pickle.

Agreed.

(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I would like to know who you think gives a pass to the problems associated with alcohol. I can't imagine anyone does.

I've known plenty of people who've argued that alcohol regulations are too restrictive in the States, and that alcohol is a force for good. I've been harangued and mocked by a few different people for politely turning down drinks in restaurants. There are many subcultures throughout the western world where alcohol is fundamental and inviolable.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Yes alcohol. The argument goes like this "what you drinking?" "Lager" "Lager? That's a womans drink!" SMACK!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:18 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  Many people challenge and fight things knowing that there are more important things that can be fought. That's not hyocritical, that's just picking your fight. Do you say the same thing to those fighting poverty? If not, why not?

It's one of the huge social problems that largely gets a pass in the western world, and I do make a point of highlighting it when social responsibility comes up.

(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I don't see it as giving a pass to anything, and I am pretty sure that we all know the dangers of alcohol, but if everyone just fought that one issue at the exclusion of all others then we'd be in a right pickle.

Agreed.

(06-01-2014 07:05 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I would like to know who you think gives a pass to the problems associated with alcohol. I can't imagine anyone does.

I've known plenty of people who've argued that alcohol regulations are too restrictive in the States, and that alcohol is a force for good. I've been harangued and mocked by a few different people for politely turning down drinks in restaurants. There are many subcultures throughout the western world where alcohol is fundamental and inviolable.

But that's not what you said. You claimed that many atheists fight religion while giving a pass to the problems of alcohol. I wonder how many of those that harangued you are religious.

Unless you mean 5 is many :-)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like joben1's post
06-01-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:45 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 06:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  He makes a case for religion being, on balance, a negative to humanity.
So, yes, he says we'd be better off without it. The means he advocates is education.

Power and control were their goals, stomping on religion was merely one of the means.

I hear this assumption a lot, but if atheism was just a pretext for the League of Militant Atheists, whose explicitly stated goal was the abolishing of religion, I wonder why no one ever calls religion just a pretext for other religiously oriented nationalist and cultural groups incorporating parallel mechanisms and techniques.

Oh, but religion is often used that way. European history is certainly replete with rulers using religion as a means of control. I find it hard to believe that every ruler was a true believer - certainly many of the popes weren't. Power was the goal, religion a means.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-01-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:24 PM)joben1 Wrote:  But that's not what you said. You claimed that many atheists fight religion while giving a pass to the problems of alcohol.

Many give it a pass in the sense that they don't think it's an issue that needs any attention.

(06-01-2014 07:24 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I wonder how many of those that harangued you are religious.

One was an avowed atheist, but another was definitely a theist. Others, I can't say.

(06-01-2014 07:24 PM)joben1 Wrote:  Unless you mean 5 is many :-)

Well, you know how we do in America.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:30 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, but religion is often used that way. European history is certainly replete with rulers using religion as a means of control. I find it hard to believe that every ruler was a true believer - certainly many of the popes weren't. Power was the goal, religion a means.

That's a more informed approach than I commonly come across on this issue. Thanks for not being dogmatic about that.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: