1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / Only on reason and on reason alone / Latest Posts

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

cleopatra143 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:23:05 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (4/30/2008)[/b][hr]Closing old posts *could* fix some things, but what about times where an old post is relevant again? Tosk dug up an old post and had a relevant update to it. A good reason not to close them.

Besides, I intend to dig up my New Years 2008 prediction thread in 7 months. :P[/quote]There is no problem with digging up a thread to discuss new and relevant information. But it is annoying, and a waste of time to see people digging up threads that are more than 3 years old just to make some dumb comment. It can also confuse people that don't notice the date. So please, think about it the next time you post in a thread that is from 2004 etc.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Nuclearcow — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:23:04 GMT

Closing old posts *could* fix some things, but what about times where an old post is relevant again? Tosk dug up an old post and had a relevant update to it. A good reason not to close them.

Besides, I intend to dig up my New Years 2008 prediction thread in 7 months. :P

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:46:08 GMT

I agree. Lets not sterilize 1BC. Lets let it fester :)

ADDIT: _AND_ pick off the scab(s) every now and again to let it re-fester-ize a bit . . .

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:00:01 GMT

OMG! You mean you visit other boards?!! How could you? After all we've been through!

(A drive by if I ever saw one)

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Tosk — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:38:54 GMT

[quote]I see no reason not to extend this rule and say one must have a valuable contribution also in running discourses[/quote]

Boy ... would that cut down on the drive by, one line, sarcastic, snippets, sidebars and hijacks that make many threads worth visiting in the first place.

I would hate to see 1BC become a boorish classroom discussion board ... sotra like U.S. institutes of higher indoctrination ... all the little ducks swimming in a cute little row according to the instructors/moderators world view. The WWW already abounds with way to many such boards ... even way to many kumbaya fest's that only allow one side of a debate to be posted ... see the PETA boards for an example.

There are posters here, that we read, on the off chance that they will, amongst their irrelevant and repetitive ranting's, garnered from the same old cut and paste information centers, will actually post some tidbit of information that we would like look into further. I would not wish to see them squelched ... I can not read every news wire every day ... I come to boards like 1BC for snippets that I would have otherwise missed ... and to do a bit of drive by sniping ... :D:D:D

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:57:22 GMT

Your point is relevant and defines exactly what rules the exception: there is a valuable contribution to the discourse.

As a matter of fact, I see no reason not to extend this rule and say one must have a valuable contribution also in running discourses - but a larger leniency can be observed there.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:59:25 GMT

[url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2224135-56-1.aspx]From here:[/url]

[quote]Wow.. this one is a year and a half old.. must be something in the water lately...

The only thing saving you from the gallows is the fact that your post is an update pertaining to the original post, and you don't usually go around digging up threads...

But... I "got my eye on you..."[/quote]

If reviving old threads is apparently a no no, why do we keep them open in the first place? If we don't turn posting off after a certain time of inactivity, why are we not allowed to post in them? I understand if the purpose is just spamming but if you have a legitimate contribution and don't want to start a new thread on the topic, what's the problem?

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:35:08 GMT

[quote][b]Mr. G (6/26/2007)[/b][hr]Be courteous, be extra-polite; but don't fear disagreement. It is what fosters this forum. But utmostly, be Libertarian (if I spelled that correctly).

I'm good at condensing[/quote]

Courteous and polite.... Hmm. We have seen some condescending posting lately. That will not do, definitely not.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Mr. G — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:15:17 GMT

Be courteous, be extra-polite; but don't fear disagreement. It is what fosters this forum. But utmostly, be Libertarian (if I spelled that correctly).

I'm good at condensing

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Comedy Dave — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:46:20 GMT

[quote][b]Scip[/b][hr]Starting threads to soliloquize about the universal dangers of religion is not the same thing. Sure, you're free to do it, but do you care that you doing it makes most people not want to participate? The real tragedy here is, I think you've got some excellent points. Heck, you might even be able to expand the worldview of some of the folks on 1BC who are religious. But you are undermining your own effectiveness because of the style and method you are using. I hate to see that happen, cause I would like to see some of the kernels in the points you make more fully digested by a range of people. But I don't really want to be around while you shove handfulls of it down their throats and throttle them for being so stupid as to not gobble it up on their own.[/quote]

Hear hear, Scip :)

I found what happened in the "So..." thread just eventually made me turn off from bothering to respond further. RK, I appreciate your passion and zeal for the topic, and I even partially agreed with you on some points, but your style can be pretty confrontational.

[quote][b]Black Owl[/b][hr]Outside of your thread RK your easy to get along with and you and I have traded a few friendly jabs. But you make yourself so difficult to have a discussion with, that it really is pointless in the "So..." thread. We all have seen how important it is to you. But your failing to make it important to anybody else. Sooner or later your going to have to look beyond yourself and see the general reaction to this subject and the way your carrying on about it. Your approach is failing. I understand things more than you'll ever know, because you only hear the sound of your own voice. AND THAT is what is causing folks to turn off to your otherwise valid concerns.[/quote]

And Black Owl's response is pretty similar to what I was thinking.

I just don't have the interest in getting into a debate where respect or at least acceptance that others may have different options is lacking. Using highly emotive language such as calling others stupid or saying teaching religion to kids is child abuse only serves to polarise the thread.

Jerm hung on in there for a bit, as he didn't want to let some comments go unreplied, but even he found it tiresome eventually.

And now I need some sleep... :P

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:47:30 GMT

[quote][b]Roadkill (2/10/2007)[/b][hr]
[quote]I think what is needed is to define religion and ultimately to limit it. You see, with religion you cover a scope that ranges from The Inquisition to the Dalai Lama and if you are not willing to make distinctions, you will ultimately wind up accusing the Dalai Lama for the acts of the Spanish Inquisition and I think no one expects that .. eh, what am I saying? ...., I mean no one accepts that.[/quote]

-I'm not that big a fan of the Dalai Lama, whose objective is to reinstate the oppressive regime of Tibet. And using Mother Theresa as an example should probably be avoided around me as well ;) . Ghandi was a bit of a racist but I can tolerate him. There is one thing the Dalai Lama has said that all people of religion should take to heart; if science disprove a tenent of Buddhism then Buddhism is in error. The reason why I think all religion is bad is because of it's absolutism and dogma and the inevitable gravitation towards a literal interpretation of scripture.[/quote]

You know Roadkill, I [i]was [/i]trying to find two examples of religion at its worst and religion at its best and make a point for distinction. But apparently I you insist on taking down all the best examples together with the worst. I had not taken that interpretation of your writing yet. Still, that being the case, I continue to insist you take on a very huge and quite controversial project and my points are still valid that it is probably better to narrow it down and present a defined alternative.
You send out the message that you 'shoot at everything that moves' and 'at any time you can' and that just does not invite, as far as I think and as far as I can see, a dialog.

[quote][quote]It seems to me, that until very recently everybody in the western world was religious.[/quote]

-In Europe it is common to affiliate religion and culture; someone saying they're christian doesn't mean they're religious. Religion has scarred the face of Europe for a long time and so sentiments towards organized religion, absolutism and dogma have been very negative. Much of the morality of christianity was still visible up until very recently but neither they were very connected to religiosity. It's a very complicated situation.[/quote]

You know, this quote surprises me. In my view it is in contradiction with how you shot down my Inquisition vs. Lama example. The way I see it is that by refusing to make distinctions between widely accepted BAD examples of religiousness and GOOD ones, you seem to be taking on religion in an all out war. But here you insist on making a distinction between levels of observance and you are making me wonder where you define the religion you are taking on and what distinguishes it from non-observant religion. So suddenly, the scope of your project has become very unclear.
It is, indeed, as you write, a very complicated situation, but where do you draw the lines?

The actual lines you draw, need not be explained in THIS thread, what I am trying to show here is that you could go about your quest in a different, more agreeable and also more effective way. What I want to accentuate at this point is, that it serves well to have some common ground with whom you speak and clarity about your own position. In the first quote you give rise to the impression that there is little common ground, though the intent of your position is clear. In the second quote, there seems to be much more room for common ground (at least I can relate very strongly to what you write), but at this point your position seems very unclear (at least me you have baffled).

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:01:56 GMT

[quote]So... what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Can't you guys take this to the "So.." thread?[/quote]

-I know I'm derailing a bit but when people make cheap jabs against me under the guise of this thread I feel that I must defend myself. But I believe I can ignore any further provocation.

[quote]At any rate, I do feel that I responded to each question asked by you Roadkill and I think I avoided ad hominem attacks as well.[/quote]

-I don't think I counted more than one and it might have been unintentional.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:16:26 GMT

So... what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Can't you guys take this to the "So.." thread? At any rate, I do feel that I responded to each question asked by you Roadkill and I think I avoided ad hominem attacks as well. I will say that I think what you mistook for ad hominem was more constructive criticism... (well mostly at least) until frustration with your refusal to acknowledge the validity of others' statements.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:50:19 GMT

[quote]I find it very funny that Scipio and Roadkill are accusing each other for opening thread after thread on ..er.. certain subjects.[/quote]

-J'accuse!

[quote]I think what is needed is to define religion and ultimately to limit it. You see, with religion you cover a scope that ranges from The Inquisition to the Dalai Lama and if you are not willing to make distinctions, you will ultimately wind up accusing the Dalai Lama for the acts of the Spanish Inquisition and I think no one expects that .. eh, what am I saying? ...., I mean no one accepts that.[/quote]

-I'm not that big a fan of the Dalai Lama, whose objective is to reinstate the oppressive regime of Tibet. And using Mother Theresa as an example should probably be avoided around me as well ;) . Ghandi was a bit of a racist but I can tolerate him. There is one thing the Dalai Lama has said that all people of religion should take to heart; if science disprove a tenent of Buddhism then Buddhism is in error. The reason why I think all religion is bad is because of it's absolutism and dogma and the inevitable gravitation towards a literal interpretation of scripture.

[quote]The question is however, if you need all that. We are here in the company of mostly western visitors, so let's narrow this down to Christianity and we know much better what we are talking about.[/quote]

-What? If we narrow it down to Abrahamic religions then it'll be like stealing candy from a baby :P .

[quote]It seems to me, that until very recently everybody in the western world was religious.[/quote]

-In Europe it is common to affiliate religion and culture; someone saying they're christian doesn't mean they're religious. Religion has scarred the face of Europe for a long time and so sentiments towards organized religion, absolutism and dogma have been very negative. Much of the morality of christianity was still visible up until very recently but neither they were very connected to religiosity. It's a very complicated situation.

[quote]If you weren't a christian you were possibly jewish and hence, it may be a bit hard to say that all bad in history comes from religion, because if religion permeated the entire society until very recently, one must also accept that all good came from religion as well.[/quote]

-Progress has never been made by examining scripture.

[quote]If I understand Roadkill correctly, he sees the alternative in atheism (a denial of the existence of god) or possibly in agnostics, in combination with rationality and science as given methods for knowing stuff.[/quote]

-Atheism is not the denial of the existence of god(Though some atheists, if not most, may deny god's existence), it's the lack of belief in god or gods. Anti-theism is the denial of the existence of god or gods. It's a silly word actually, a word to describe your negative position towards a concept, people don't call themselves a-santa-ists. But atheism is not an alternative, humanism is an alternative. I do not subscribe to humanism myself, I feel that it exhalts humanity too much. I have my own philosophy.

[quote]That is where you can make an interesting argument. How rationality is better than beliefs. How beliefs are based on dogmatics, how that is contrary to critical thinking how that is not contributing to personal well-being and prosperity of people and the state whereas you show that rational and critical thinking is.[/quote]

-Rational thinking gave us medicine, belief gave us exorcism. One might retort by saying rational thinking gave us the atom bomb and one would be true in saying so but then the question is; did rational thinking lead to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[quote]Often in debate it is good to ask questions.[/quote]

-People didn't answer the questions I asked.

[quote]But this is negated by the fact that, I don't really care that much, and to engage you on this topic seems to automatically become a matter of mortal kombat[/quote]

-FINISH HIM!

[quote]if only you did not drive away your audience with a martial arts kind of rhetoric[/quote]

-Soduken!

[quote]But I don't really want to be around while you shove handfulls of it down their throats and throttle them for being so stupid as to not gobble it up on their own.[/quote]

-Well, it's been mostly personal attacks and I don't play nice when faced with such responses. Quite colorful though, HAVE YOU TOUCHED MY CRAYONS?!

[quote]I'm not going to commit to some kinda you-quote/I-quote game here. Suffice to say, there are many places where you seem to have misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I was saying. Based on your rebuttals to my quoted text, you often seem to have attributed a hostility to my words which I really had no intention to convey.[/quote]

-You accuse me of being dogmatic, preaching and prosletyzing, I don't think I misunderstood. You also give religion special treatment throughout your thread and rationalize away the deaths of millions within the blink of an eye. Suffice to say, I have some issues with your post.

-I think alot of the criticism of the "So..." thread is based on my replies to ad hominem attacks. If only people would criticize the attacks as much as my replies...

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:37:15 GMT

This is very tiresome. On one level, I would love to have a discussion with you about this Roadkill. You are obviously very engaged, and care about it.

But this is negated by the fact that, I don't really care that much, and to engage you on this topic seems to automatically become a matter of mortal kombat, complete with requisite hours spent in complex html quoting algorithms engaging in point-counter-point arguments. If there is a specific statement, or message about religion that someone has expressed somewhere on 1BC (similar e.g., to using the "I" word) that you feel deserves a rhetorical assault of some sort, then get us focused on that. Lets go to that thread that someone else started or posted in, and counter those "dangerous messages" so that the 10-year olds of 1BC are not lured to the dark side.

Starting threads to soliloquize about the universal dangers of religion is not the same thing. Sure, you're free to do it, but do you care that you doing it makes most people not want to participate? The real tragedy here is, I think you've got some excellent points. Heck, you might even be able to expand the worldview of some of the folks on 1BC who are religious. But you are undermining your own effectiveness because of the style and method you are using. I hate to see that happen, cause I would like to see some of the kernels in the points you make more fully digested by a range of people. But I don't really want to be around while you shove handfulls of it down their throats and throttle them for being so stupid as to not gobble it up on their own.

As it stands, you do not seem to be responding in order to counter and rebutt "dangerous messages" in religious posts made on 1BC by other community members, e.g., threads started in order to offer justifications for holy war, or posts that use words like "infidel" in an offhanded, casual manner. You're simply getting on a soap box, posting some provocative lures, then reeling in your victims when they take the bait. A year or two ago, there was a lot of this going on on 1BC, but it has thankfully died down, in part thanks to people responding to trolling threads with rational arguments to defuse them. Perhaps you feel that some of the past trolling behavior has been treated unfairly? Many of the folks who were past recidivists of trolling no longer seem to participate on 1BC very much. But in fact, some of them have become quite sociable and agreeable contributors to the site. Maybe your trying to make some sorta meta-point by executing what you see is a mirror-image of the rebuttals that have been offered to counter trolling threads in the past?

The energy and devotion you show in quoting nearly every line of my post separately, and providing a response of some sort is indicative of the potential you have to make a real difference in our world; if only you did not drive away your audience with a martial arts kind of rhetoric :P

I'm not going to commit to some kinda you-quote/I-quote game here. Suffice to say, there are many places where you seem to have misunderstood, or misinterpreted what I was saying. Based on your rebuttals to my quoted text, you often seem to have attributed a hostility to my words which I really had no intention to convey. My apologies if I did not make myself adequately clear, but:

(1) I'm NOT seeing that you really WANT to understand what I'm saying

(2) I AM seeing that you seem to have the time to engage in lengthy quoting for the sake of creating a lot of work for your debate partners, and

(3) I do feel that the meanings in alot of your rebuttals indicate a kind of malicious desire to lash out irrationally, and not actually communicate and interact with your discussants.

When I combine these observations with the fact that, I simply do not care about this as much as you do, and do not see the earth shattering significance of whether or not I do or do not participate, I am not particularly inclined to continue to participate. If it were not for hoping that you can be convinced to shift your delivery a bit I would have already stopped responding.

Dude, I'm an evolutionary biologist! :)

But I am also a spiritual agnostic. I see the kernel of truth in a lot of what you are arguing. Religion has been culpable in a LOT of bad. I just don't see it as being ALL BAD, or "the anti-christ" so to speak. There is way too much diversity in there under that rubric 'religion,' as RA points out with his Inquisition-Dalai Lama continuum. Moreover, that only represents one dimension of what is probably best conceived as a multi-dimensional space. For example, I myself have spiritual feelings, and my own theory about "God;" which I call my "amoeba theory." It'd be fun to tell you all about it, except for the fact that I have this suspiscion that if I did, whatever I said would be come fodder for one of your quoting barrages. Nobody likes to see what they have to say dissembled like a Frankenstein Monster, and unless you can clearly and concisely show that what you are seeking to counter is tantamount to promoting hate or violence, I think the consensus about the site etiquette is that it is bad form to seek to shut someone down with a wall of text.

Really, I'd love to have a chat with you about this, but not if your gonna act like this: disagreeable, patronizing, disrespectful, hostile. Maybe I've been guilty of slipping down the same slippery slope in some past exchanges here, but beyond me acknowledging that possibility and stating that it is something of which I will always seek to be mindful [but remind me if need be! :w00t:], two wrongs never make a right do they?

RA started this thread so that all of us in this 1BC "family" can hash out how it is that we want to agree to interact.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 08:33:25 GMT

Recently I started a thread involving satire. I feel very strongly about being able to use it as a seperate topic. When the wisdom of such postings was called into question, I began to protest quit strongly. Then I just kinda sat back and looked at the bigger picture. What was the reaction of the Forum in general. While there was some support, and I thank those that backed the idea, the overall reaction was one of none participation. That more than anything convinced me that 1bc members don't really care much either way. So I'm letting that thread die a peaceful death. I don't continue posting there to keep it alive and as an ongoing thorn in 1bc's side. I see the reality and I adapt.

Outside of your thread RK your easy to get along with and you and I have traded a few friendly jabs. But you make yourself so difficult to have a discussion with, that it really is pointless in the "So..." thread. We all have seen how important it is to you. But your failing to make it important to anybody else. Sooner or later your going to have to look beyond yourself and see the general reaction to this subject and the way your carrying on about it. Your approach is failing. I understand things more than you'll ever know, because you only hear the sound of your own voice. AND THAT is what is causing folks to turn off to your otherwise valid concerns.

If you intend to quote me here, at least show the respect of quoting everything I said, not just what suits your argument. It really is getting old.;)

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:47:10 GMT

I find it very funny that Scipio and Roadkill are accusing each other for opening thread after thread on ..er.. certain subjects.

So let it be said that in case one feels very strong about a certain subject, it is apparently hard to shut up about it. However, maybe it shows from the reactions of the bystanders that it surely doesn't help the cause when you keep dragging it to the forefront.

But, having said this, and having started this thread, I see myself obliged to offer some alternative, that I would view as sound advice. So let's take Roadkill's quest as an example. Yes, you are deeply convinced that religiousness serves people and nations very badly and they would be better off without it. I think that is, ultimately a worthy cause that deserves a successful approach.

I think what is needed is to define religion and ultimately to limit it. You see, with religion you cover a scope that ranges from The Inquisition to the Dalai Lama and if you are not willing to make distinctions, you will ultimately wind up accusing the Dalai Lama for the acts of the Spanish Inquisition and I think no one expects that .. eh, what am I saying? ...., I mean no one accepts that.
In addition if you try to define religion as something dogmatic and founding truth statements not on ratio and fact finding search but in stead in one superbeing, you may have a hard time identifying Buddhism as a religion and you may find that Hinduism, on account of being polytheistic is much less dogmatic, let aside a few abberations.
The question is however, if you need all that. We are here in the company of mostly western visitors, so let's narrow this down to Christianity and we know much better what we are talking about.
Then another thing. It seems to me, that until very recently everybody in the western world was religious. If you weren't a christian you were possibly jewish and hence, it may be a bit hard to say that all bad in history comes from religion, because if religion permeated the entire society until very recently, one must also accept that all good came from religion as well.
Now here is another point. If you think some rather generally accepted idea is bad, you will have to pose an alternative, otherwise we really have no idea what you are talking about. I mean up until recently there was nothing that was not religious. The alternative for Christianity was Judaism, or really it was not thought that way, the alternative for one flavor of Christianity was another.
If I understand Roadkill correctly, he sees the alternative in atheism (a denial of the existence of god) or possibly in agnostics, in combination with rationality and science as given methods for knowing stuff.
Well that is where you can narrow down the argument. In the current day and age, in the Western world, where there is this strong rational tradition held up by science and secular philosophy it is no longer needed to hold beliefs in god.
That is where you can make an interesting argument. How rationality is better than beliefs. How beliefs are based on dogmatics, how that is contrary to critical thinking how that is not contributing to personal well-being and prosperity of people and the state whereas you show that rational and critical thinking is.

Still this is a very sizable goal to set and as always in life with large goals in mind it is wise to chop up into to smaller subgoals. For example, Roadkill tried to show that teaching children a belief in Heaven and Hell, or specifically in Hell, is detrimental to their mental health. Let us call it the Child-Psychology argument.

The next point I want to bring up is that there is care needed in how to present the argument. The way Roadkill played the argument, Jerm, in the end felt being accused of being a child abuser, and even if that is exactly what Roadkill thinks, it really doesn't help the discussion much, to say that in so many words. Though some interesting points were made around the point whether instilling fear in a child is bad or not.

Often in debate it is good to ask questions. I wonder how much worse Roadkill would have done had he made his point in the form of a question: suppose Child Psychology shows that teaching children to believe in a Hell is detrimental to their mental health and results in higher chance for such and such disorders; would you stop teaching your children to believe in Hell?

I can imagine Jerm responding that any which way is not just teaching his kids to believe in Hell, but also Heaven and Redemption and Salvation that it may just as well be so that a child that picks out Hell and gets some fear related disorder, was prone to fear disorders anyway and could have picked up a fear of Child Abducters in much the same way.

And so on. The same discussion, but in a different tone and with probably more people interested and contributing.[/size][/size]

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:30:41 GMT

[quote]Well that explains a lot. So through talking with a lot of de-converts and atheists, you've reached the conclusion that the best way to combat the badness of religion is to preach about the badness of religion? The best way to "cure"people of their stupid religious superstitions is to tell them their stupid for having religious superstitions? You also seem to have concluded that the best way to convince people that they should not rely on empirically uncorroborable principles of faith is to simply tell them to their faces and in no uncertain terms "Your stupid cause you don't even know the difference between an empirically corroborable piece of evidence and a uncorroborable one?"[/quote]

-When did I say that I go around calling religious people stupid? You know, when you just make stuff up that does not strenghten your position. I talk to people, not at them. We discuss the different views we have about things, I do not go on an all-out attack on them. The intention of the "So..." thread was to be honest about my opinions, not to cuddle up to you or deconvert you. If you start reading what I say instead of just guessing what I say and then making stuff up then perhaps you might do better.

[quote]But I do disagree that you are making such a big deal out of it[/quote]

-Yes, how wrong of me to make a big deal out of a millenia of oppression, war, torture, persecution, slavery, racism, anti-semetism, social injustice and all those fun, fluffy things...

[quote]After all, how much negative impact has religion actually had in YOUR life?[/quote]

-So, until someone in my family has cancer I should in no way discuss it or assist in finding a cure? This is the kind of stuff I'm always confronted with when discussing religion, a complete brainmelt.

[quote]Has anyone in your entire NATION recently suffered as a result of religion?[/quote]

-Yes.

[quote]If you think the answer to that is yes, then perhaps more details might reveal why it is that you adopt such a dogmatic, disagreeable, and unfriendly rhetorical style when you discuss religion.[/quote]

-Ok, unless you are able to point out my dogmatism you shouldn't just throw these things out there. How nice of you to dabble in some ad hominem. Seriously, can't anyone argue anymore?

[quote]On the other hand, I can very quickly list off half-dozen people whom I know personally, for whom religion is apparently a very satisfying, and redeeming element in their lives.[/quote]

-Yes, I'm sure Giordano Bruno is happy to hear that. Where do you draw the line? A 2/1 ratio? 15/1? What? It's amazing how people can rationalize certain things.

[quote]The point here is not whether agostics, athiests, buddhists, or religious zealots in general are more or less happy, get divorced more or less often, or can otherwise be attributed as being better or worse than people of other beliefs.[/quote]

-It was you who brought that up so don't try to turn the table here.

[quote]The point is that, they are free to believe how they choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.[/quote]

-In case you haven't noticed they're encroaching on the rights of others all the time. Gay marriage, stem cell research, "under god," this based on nothing but an old book and "magik." They are most certainly encroaching on the rights of others and they will continue to do so for as long as they continue to brainwash their children just as they were.

[quote]Even attributing the Islamofascist threat as being "because of" religion is not an error I would commit.[/quote]

-I would love to see them justify it without using religion.

[quote]You know as well as I do that the willingness to strap on a bomb and kill innocents is only tangentially related to religion, and more importantly derived from insanity, of both a social and personal nature.[/quote]

-Or when you're convinced that there's an afterlife and that by blowing yourself up you go to heaven with 72 virgins.

[quote]Do I think that because most world religions have been complicit in some sort of abuse, or atrocity at some point in history that "religion is fundamentally, and irretreviably bad?" No I don't.[/quote]

-Right now a light should begin to flash. What happens in a theocracy? Economic and scientific stagnation, social injustice and tyranny. What happens in a democracy where religion is not a strong force? More social justice, less racism, less crime. What happens in a democracy where religion is a strong force? More social injustice, racism and crime. It's a historical and statistical fact.

[quote]Forgive me if I mistake your intent, but you certainly seem to be preaching and prosletyzing, even if what you are preaching and prosletyzing is a non-religious dogma, it does still appear to be a dogma, no?[/quote]

-How did my statement turn into dogma? Seriously, you're just saying stuff because you don't like what I say, there's no substance in your statements.

[quote]If your child, or your father or girlfriend had been kidnapped and burned at the stake by those hypothetical cow-mutilating fanatics I dreamed up a couple lines above, then your zeal might not come across as being so disagreeable.[/quote]

-And here it is again, a complete brainmelt.

[quote]You don't seem to have enough patience to let someone make their own mistakes.[/quote]

-In no way would you tolerate this as a valid arguement in one of your islamofacist threads. Still giving religion special treatment.

[quote]This retort is emblematic.[/quote]

-You were trying to justify religion by appealing to things that are not in any way exclusive to religion. You are in no way thinking things through, you have your position and because you don't like what I'm saying you're ignoring my arguements and making such weak retorts, some borderline psychotic("Millions of people have died but hey, about half-a-dozen of my friends are happy." Do you seriously think that these friends would collapse if they didn't have religion or that they would go out and start killing people? How can you seriously justify this?).

[quote]One might condemn obesity because it is "stupid!"[/quote]

-If you can't see the flaw in this comparison...

[quote]And yet, you feel it is okay to condemn religious people because they are stupid?[/quote]

-Now I'm condemning religious people?

[quote]I don't think anybody here wants to convert you to be religious Roadkill, yet you seem to be hellbent on the vice versa![/quote]

-I don't care what you believe, I do care what children teach for they are the future and to hamper them with bronze age myth is at best neglent. If you think so highly of religion don't you think it should be a choice that everyone makes at an age where they have a say in the matter? And when you start making decisions based on these beliefs you had better expect that someone questions the validity of them. If I said that comunism is great and my justification was "This book says so" you would in no way take me seriously nor would you respect my belief(You might respect my right to hold a belief but that's another matter). Somehow, when we discuss religion the rules suddenly change. I just want every person to ask themselves "Would I accept anything with no evidence at all and should I really be teaching this which has no reasonable validity to my children?" Is that a good example for children?

[quote]But when someone gets on a soap box, insists on not letting sleeping dogs lie, starts up thread after thread to seemingly try to hammer down, refute, undermine, belittle, else "de-convert" people of some other viewpoint which is posing zero real threat to the poster in the first place, well, I guess it just gets tireseome, eh?[/quote]

-I HAVE STARTED POSSIBLY THREE THREADS ON RELIGION(Including "So...") AND ONE OF THEM WAS MERELY SOME BABBLE AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF STARTING UP THREAD AFTER THREAD WHILE YOU GO ON YOUR LITTLE ANTI-ISLAMOFACIST CAMPAIGN, STARTING UP MORE THREADS IN SIX MONTHS?! You are giving religion special treatment, as are most of the posters, and it seeps through your posts, rarely have I seen so much hipocracy. The worst thing is that the true theists often understand much better what I'm talking about than the "agnostics" who try to cuddle up to everyone and say "I respect everybody." Guess what, there's truth and there's falsehood and religion is falsehood, yet you tolerate and even welcome this falsehood because you "care about everybody." You turn a blind eye to the centuries of suffering under the yoak of religion, rationalizing it by spouting religious propaganda fed to you. Millions have died as a result of religion, if not billions. Do these numbers compute in your brain? Millions, not a million, millions, or billions. And considering that it has impeded progress more than anything else, saying that disease is caused by sin and demons I'm quite sure we can add alot more. And this goes on to this day with priests teaching people in AIDS infected communities that using condoms is a sin and that there are small holes in condoms that let the virus through, you justify this?! Why don't we let Nazism have another go? It didn't turn out to well last time but we shouldn't hold that against it should we? You are giving religion special treatment and before you shrug that off there is little point in discussing it with you.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:53:03 GMT

Well that explains a lot. So through talking with a lot of de-converts and atheists, you've reached the conclusion that the best way to combat the badness of religion is to preach about the badness of religion? The best way to "cure"people of their stupid religious superstitions is to tell them their stupid for having religious superstitions? You also seem to have concluded that the best way to convince people that they should not rely on empirically uncorroborable principles of faith is to simply tell them to their faces and in no uncertain terms "Your stupid cause you don't even know the difference between an empirically corroborable piece of evidence and a uncorroborable one?"

You're certainly free to engage with others in that way, and there is a certain kind of logic to justifying it on the basis that the religious bliss of a few is founded on the backs of dead millions. It is true that millions have died in conflicts and violence in which religion was a major factor that motivated the violence.

Certainly there is nothing particularly technically rhetorically wrong in your style, which I'd label as a sort of machine gun, or steam roller style. Overall, I cannot disagree with your basic points. But I do disagree that you are making such a big deal out of it, and doing so, evidently based on nothing more than principle. After all, how much negative impact has religion actually had in YOUR life? Has anyone you know or love died or suffered as a result of religion? Has anyone in your entire NATION recently suffered as a result of religion? If you think the answer to that is yes, then perhaps more details might reveal why it is that you adopt such a dogmatic, disagreeable, and unfriendly rhetorical style when you discuss religion. On the other hand, I can very quickly list off half-dozen people whom I know personally, for whom religion is apparently a very satisfying, and redeeming element in their lives. In fact their are millions of people for whom religion is a centerpiece of happiness. In many nations, people who are faithful followers of a religion are known to derive considerable (epidemiological) health benefits and protection from their fantasies.

The point here is not whether agnostics, athiests, buddhists, or religious zealots in general are more or less happy, get divorced more or less often, or can otherwise be attributed as being better or worse than people of other beliefs. The point is that, they are ALL free to believe how they choose as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. You may disagree with religion in general, but how exactly do the existence of other people's religious beliefs infringe on your right, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?

Are there some underground religious cults in Norway that are secretively infiltrating top government positions, kidnapping peoples family pets, and commiting heinous nocturnal dissection rituals on community cows and sheep? Even attributing the Islamofascist threat as being "because of" religion is not an error I would commit. You know as well as I do that the willingness to strap on a bomb and kill innocents is only tangentially related to religion, and more importantly derived from insanity, of both a social and personal nature.

Do I think that Islam has been complicit in Islamofascism? Yes I do. Do I think that because most world religions have been complicit in some sort of abuse, or atrocity at some point in history that "religion is fundamentally, and irretreviably bad?" No I don't. If I were to conclude that, what would stop me from concluding that public schools, social welfare, armed forces, voting, hospitals, and any manner of human institutions which have been at some time culpable are "fundamentally and irretrievably bad?" You seem to be fundamentally and irretrievably nihilistic!

[quote] The problem is that people say "Atheism can't give me what I need" and they never try to find out, religion survives on the apathy of humans [/quote]

Forgive me if I mistake your intent, but you certainly seem to be preaching and prosletyzing, even if what you are preaching and prosletyzing is a non-religious dogma, it does still appear to be a dogma, no? Herein is the problem I think, and why we are discussing it in this thread. The way you express yourself about this comes across as being very dogmatic Roadkill. You're not just offering a point of view, and your also not offering some sort of salient "case" to make your crusade against religion seem resonable or justified. If your child, or your father or girlfriend had been kidnapped and burned at the stake by those hypothetical cow-mutilating fanatics I dreamed up a couple lines above, then your zeal might not come across as being so disagreeable. People might even listen to you when you tell them "You're stupid" for thinking and feeling what you feel if they understood why it is that you feel it is so important to stick their faces in it. I think it is the issue of framing which is perhaps the most problematic for you in discussing this topic. You don't seem to have enough patience to let someone make their own mistakes.

[quote] -Spirituality isn't limited to religion either. [/quote]

This retort is emblematic. While it is certainly an axiomatic statement it does not really seem to address the point I was making, and it seems to have been inserted in a simple kind of "line item, overwhelm them with the inventory" sort of approach.

Religion taps into spirituality, something that I am suggesting seems to be common to humans. You seem to agree it is common to humans, much as, for example, appetite for sweets or salts are common to humans. One might condemn obesity because it is "stupid!" "kills millions of people!" "derives from ignorance" and is exploited by commercialism etc. One could then retort that, well, obesity seems to partly manifest from a kind of human foible, common in part to all of us (akin to spirituality). To which one could then retort that, "Craving fat, salt, sweet and sugar is not limited to obesity either."

The point is not that one HAS to be religious in order to be spiritual or to be true to their spirituality, just as one does not have to be obese to satiate their hunger. The point is that, for many people the one can be seen as being a reflection of the other; I'm not justifying the one because of the other, simply observing that human foibles and weaknesses can in one context be adaptive, but in another context, maladaptive. You would not condemn a fat person for being weak and stupid because they have too much craving would you? To point out to them the contributing factors in a polite, respectful, gentle, and friendly way is one thing. But to simply condemn them for succumbing to their frailties is a very different matter, even if it is technically correct. And yet, you feel it is okay to condemn religious people because they are stupid? At best, this strikes me as being mean-spirited, and at worst sociopathic.

It is here that we can call in Locus Coeruleus' very pithy comment: Live and let live.

I don't think anybody here wants to convert you to be religious Roadkill, yet you seem to be hellbent on the vice versa! I think this is the issue that is at the heart of why this thread is ongoing.

If you have something that interests you, something that bugs you, amazes you, something that annoys, or angers you, I think that many of us in the community at 1BC will take an interest in knowing about the thoughts, feelings, introspections, memories, ideas, etc., of our fellow community members. We are after all a social animal.

But when someone gets on a soap box, insists on not letting sleeping dogs lie, starts up thread after thread to seemingly try to hammer down, refute, undermine, belittle, else "de-convert" people of some other viewpoint which is posing zero real threat to the poster in the first place, well, I guess it just gets tireseome, eh? Can you see that, the very same reasons why you have such strong feelings about religions for being preachy, dogmatic, "abusive" as you put it, etc., are why people don't like your tone when it comes to discussions about religion?

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:46:42 GMT

[quote]Sooo RK, you defend your right to attack, but denounce it when it's thrown back at you. There's a word for that.[/quote]

-You don't understand much do you? And could you please be more specific?

[quote]Setting all talk of religion aside, and lets pretend it doesn't exist. Does that then take away your notion that discussion need be held as it was in "So...", or in Konrads thread?[/quote]

-I'm not sure what you mean here.

[quote]Lets say I want to talk about evoulution. I might say (this is only a for instance), that Dinosaurs evolved into birds. You might disagree. But you only have fossil records to support your claims. "You can't possibly know for sure because all you have is a pile of bones that aren't even bones anymore and a bunch of silly theories!" I believe that so firmly that no matter what you say your wrong. I say "Even your facts are biased to your opinion and your stupid for believing them". "Your abusing or atleast neglecting your Children by teaching them dinosaurs were killed off by a comet!" How would that play out with you? How would you see my side of the discussion?[/quote]

-I'm not going to argue with you when you can't even differ between something based on evidence and something based on no evidence.

[quote]Point is no matter how "stupid"we might feel someones beliefs and arguments are, we do owe some level of respect as they are also Human.[/quote]

-This is not about the person, it's about the beliefs a person holds. I respect all people equally, I do not respect their beliefs as a consequense. Ignorance flourishes when questions are not asked and people remain unchallenged.

[quote]There is wisdom in allowing others their paths. Quoting Locus, "Live and let live." If something bad arises out of religion then by all means we should attack it. But attacking religion for being religion without attacking everything else in this world that gives rise to bad, and bringing those things into discussion, negates the point, doesn't it?[/quote]

-There is no wisdom in stupidity. Just because you manage to construct a coherent sentence does not mean that it should be given respect. I give respect unto what is deserving of it, I do not reward incompetance, nor do I celebrate ignorance. You must understand that there is something wrong with making absolutist statements without any basis at all on account of your ignorance and then basing decisions on it. And "live and let live" only works as long as noone says "kill to succeed." The basis for religion is bad in and of itself(Unless you think absolutism and dogma is good) and the teachings of most religions are backward meanderings from a bronze age perspective. Religion is a source of bad things, when and where religion rules there is oppression and social injustice, it's been like this since it's inception, progress being fueled by the blood of "blasphemers" and "heretics." Just the fact that these words exist should make it plain what religion does. You are talking about punishing the effects, I say we remove the source. It's also interesting how you imply once again that I support the homogenisation of society with your "allowing other paths" remark, just as you did with your "is there no magic in your world" post when that is the aim of religion. I don't have a problem with differing ideas, I have a problem when those ideas stem from ignorance.

[quote]In discussing things between ourselves here on 1bc, we should be mindful that we are friends and not enemies. And no one here is "Stupid". Just different ideals and thoughts. I don't agree with all you say, but niether do I disagree with your points. You are intittled do whatever you feel you must to save the world. And I applaude your attempts.[/quote]

-But we must always question the basis of these ideals and thoughts, and if their foundation does not stand on their own then we should not endow them with respect. I have a hard time thinking anyone here would respect a neo-nazi's beliefs, yet his beliefs have a similar, if not stronger, foundation than any religion practiced today. We make religion exempt from scrutiny and give it undue respect because of the propaganda spewed out by the various religious institutions throughout time, even though they never return the favour, we must tear down these walls and look at religion for what it truly is and judge it on it's merits.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:51:46 GMT

Sooo RK, you defend your right to attack, but denounce it when it's thrown back at you. There's a word for that.

Setting all talk of religion aside, and lets pretend it doesn't exist. Does that then take away your notion that discussion need be held as it was in "So...", or in Konrads thread?

Lets say I want to talk about evoulution. I might say (this is only a for instance), that Dinosaurs evolved into birds. You might disagree. But you only have fossil records to support your claims. "You can't possibly know for sure because all you have is a pile of bones that aren't even bones anymore and a bunch of silly theories!" I believe that so firmly that no matter what you say your wrong. I say "Even your facts are biased to your opinion and your stupid for believing them". "Your abusing or atleast neglecting your Children by teaching them dinosaurs were killed off by a comet!" How would that play out with you? How would you see my side of the discussion?

Point is no matter how "stupid"we might feel someones beliefs and arguments are, we do owe some level of respect as they are also Human. If I'm not shown respect, I will not show any. You would expect that wouldn't you? No one asked, I believe, for you to change your beliefs or convictions. Just to stop attacking that which don't fully grasp. You say you do. But you don't display that.

There is wisdom in allowing others their paths. Quoting Locus, "Live and let live." If something bad arises out of religion then by all means we should attack it. But attacking religion for being religion without attacking everything else in this world that gives rise to bad, and bringing those things into discussion, negates the point, doesn't it?

In discussing things between ourselves here on 1bc, we should be mindful that we are friends and not enemies. And no one here is "Stupid". Just different ideals and thoughts. I don't agree with all you say, but niether do I disagree with your points. You are intittled do whatever you feel you must to save the world. And I applaude your attempts.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Locus Coeruleus — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:13:12 GMT

Live and let live, I always say! :w00t:

::runs::

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:10:09 GMT

Yes, people I really MUST implore that you all press your intelligence and use the examples of So... and discuss them here at a meta-level, meaning discussing what is better and worse conduct in a thread, without raking in the actual issue at hand. And IF someone does, again not to react to the issue of religion being good or bad, but HOW such can be discussed without derailing a thread.
I observe that that rather taxes you, but you must do your best

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:53:15 GMT

Fair enough, though now we are derailing the reason debate with the "soo.." debate.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:50:51 GMT

-My eyes aren't working too well it seems psweet, looks like I have to be put down...

[quote]Well jeez, that's all I was trying to get out of you.[/quote]

-Hold your horses there kiddo(Hehe, kiddo...), I think any religion that has a heaven and hell in it is abusive to children so that will include mormonism. Just thought I'd clarify that. And all others are neglent. Wait, let me make this as clear as possible; teaching absolutism and dogma(Especially without justification) is neglent, doing so using threats is abuse(No matter how benign the threat). I'm not yet quite happy with this definition, might fix it a little bit if possible.

EDIT: Shutting up now, though I do love a derail...

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

psweetman1590 — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:37:22 GMT

[quote]

As I recall, both you and I said that multiple times....

-I can't remember saying that myself(I've said I won't respond to ad hominem attacks).[/quote]

I was talking to Jerm, Rk. :P

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:32:25 GMT

[quote]It does not encompass all religion(Though all religion is still bad).[/quote]

Well jeez, that's all I was trying to get out of you. :P

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:28:33 GMT

[quote]but I soon realized that in fact he was making an absolute statement that all religion equates to child abuse.[/quote]

-Didn't I say that teaching religion is child neglect and that putting a gun to it's head(Heaven/Hell) is abuse? It does not encompass all religion(Though all religion is still bad).

[quote]I did not feel that any of my attacks were personal or ad hominem for that matter.[/quote]

-Ad hominem means personal attack(Well, against the person). I used them interchangably which I shouldn't do.

[quote]1- Is it against Sean' intentions? Then I'd like to know from Sean. I have not heard his objection at all, quite to the contrary.[/quote]

-My impression of Sean's intentions then.

[quote]Clear?[/quote]

-Could you repeat that? I must have fallen asleep:P.

SA:

[quote]Wow. You obviously feel very strongly about this RK, and I suspect that that is part of the reason no one has given what you consider to be a reasonable counter argument.[/quote]

-I feel strongly about most things because I devote a large amount of time to come to my conclusions. Religion is probably the topic I am most involved in, spending alot of time talking to atheists, deconverts, and religious people.

[quote]Let me just say that, I agree with you, religion has all too often, been part of the problem. But it appears to me that you are not willing to acknowledge that there is a baby in that bath water that you want to throw out. Let me give a few examples. There are many people who are humble, kind, peaceful, and socially productive individuals, who are good community members BECAUSE they converted to a religion. In sum, religion does help some people to overcome other sources of bad behavior, be it secular community forces like crime or gangs, bad parenting, poverty, war, whatever.[/quote]

-I think the problem is that the things you relate to religion are not in any way exclusive to it, you are also ignoring psychology 101; pivot points. The problem is that people say "Atheism can't give me what I need" and they never try to find out, religion survives on the apathy of humans. Rituals, community support, none of these are exclusively religous, they're not even exclusively human. And the track record of religion cannot be justified with the bliss of a few people on the backs of millions dead. Onto the pivot point; people who are in a tough place in their lives often resort to a pivot point to focus on, sometimes that's religion, often it's having a child, getting a girlfriend, getting married, atheism, etc, etc. We're just removing one pivot point which leads to so much suffering(I wouldn't recommend having a child when you're in a tough place either).

[quote]Second, I would argue that some sort of "spirituality" is a common element in our human psychological apparatus.[/quote]

-Spirituality isn't limited to religion either.

[quote]While religion, and the baroque institutions that have evolved from religions are a far cry from that basic human sentiment of spirituality, it could also be pointed out that marriage the the baroque institutions that have evolved from customs of betrothal are a far cry from the basic human sentiment of love and devotion, or family. It is on this basis that I think religion must be at least allowed to continue even if in some sort of "probationary" status. While it is true that religion has been guilty of bad behavior, it is also deeply connected to the human heart, and to cut it out would risk cutting out so much a chunk of the human heart that the patient would not survive the operation.[/quote]

-Yet again you limit something to religion that is not so. And a quick peek at any statistics would show that married atheists have a lower divorce rate and the atheist population in relation to the prison population shows that we're more lawabiding(Or we're just to smart to be caught :P ).

[quote]And lastly, you argue against ad hominem attacks, and ask for highly specified rebuttals and argumentation to counter each of your specific points, but have a double standard for your own rhetoric in that you make the sweeping claim that: because religion has been culpable many times, religion is completely indefensible.[/quote]

-I back up my "sweeping" claim with arguement and evidence, something that cannot be said for religion. Or do you have evidence of god's existance?

-I'm sorry if I don't just lie down and let religion roll over me just yet SA.

[quote]Perhaps RK feels he can make the same claim[/quote]

-I do.

[quote]I do recall him starting a number of "anti-religion" threads that referred to a specific incident (e.g., the meth smoking southern preacher thread) in which a religious person, or group, or some religious principle was attributed as being culpable.[/quote]

-I did not, I showed the hipocracy of the individual(Ted Haggard).

BO:

[quote]And again you use the same tactics. YES, you started that thread and you are as responsible for providing factual evidence as any one else. You argue there is no God to to support the belief in a God. Yet you offer no facts to back up that claim. Do you see that?[/quote]

-Let me just break a few laws of physics while I'm at it as well then. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR A NEGATIVE! I said that I can back up my opinions with reason and logic, I can disprove any god you are willing to define, no theist can say this. Do you know what arguement people of faith give in the end? "You can't disprove god." No,I can't. And neither can I disprove unicorns, does that make believing in them valid? NO! I cannot give you facts because that is imposibble, I can do anything else though.

[quote]I think it better that you argue that one cannot prove the existence of GOD by actually presenting him on Earth, so to push the ideolgy on others is without merit. On the other hand you ignore the importance of faith to the religious and attack them for being "Stupid". That is a personal view, not a factual view. Faith is something to these folks that is one of the most important factors to them. Your wrong to approach them as you are. It would be better in your interests to show the respect of approaching them with consideration.[/quote]

-It is stupid to believe in a sky daddy who's all loving but has this thing called hell, and that you'll spend eternity in heaven with him and be so happy in spite of the people suffering in hell, possibly family and friends, and so much more stupid crap without evidence. Yes, that is stupid. Faith is also stupid, especially when mixed with this whole soul thing and eternal punishment or bliss. How do you know it's right if it's all based on faith? You might be worshipping the devil for all you know, not to mention the wrong god(There's many to pick from). Yes, that is stupid. Grown men do not believe in santa, unicorns, faeries or leprechauns(There are exceptions of course) and to give exception to this crazy idea is... stupid.

[quote]In this thread we are attempting to find better ways to communicate. NOT create more rules which is why I got heated over my thread. It is not an attack on you personaly. But a examination as to how to best approach things just like this.[/quote]

-Then stop attacking my arguements in this thread!

[quote]As I recall, both you and I said that multiple times....[/quote]

-I can't remember saying that myself(I've said I won't respond to ad hominem attacks).

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

psweetman1590 — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:01:07 GMT

[quote]Hey, I said, "I'm done." [/quote]

As I recall, both you and I said that multiple times.... ;)

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:39:01 GMT

[quote]I can see that you are a bit defensive about this, and though I have not (and shall not) read much more about this, It would seem that some of your debate partners here have also gotten a bit defensive. My suggestion would be that all of you simply shut up about it. All of you. You guys have been carrying on about your anti-religion, pro-religion stuff for months, and yet the major protagonists are still engaging, and apparently have not changed their positions much at all. From this I think you can all gather that, none of you are getting anywhere with it Sure if some new member chimes in to an existing thread and wants to discuss it, maybe then a continuation or renewal of it would be warranted, but in the absence of that, why not just accept that, none of you are gonna convince the others? At worst, continued acrimonious debates about highly opinionated topics like blanket condemnations of religion are going to harm 1BC membership, scaring away prospective new members. At best, I suppose it gives you guys something to do, but aren't there better things for you to spend your time on!? [/quote]

Hey, I said, "I'm done." We'll see huh?;)

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:36:33 GMT

And again you use the same tactics. YES, you started that thread and you are as responsible for providing factual evidence as any one else. You argue there is no God to to support the belief in a God. Yet you offer no facts to back up that claim. Do you see that?

I think it better that you argue that one cannot prove the existence of GOD by actually presenting him on Earth, so to push the ideolgy on others is without merit. On the other hand you ignore the importance of faith to the religious and attack them for being "Stupid". That is a personal view, not a factual view. Faith is something to these folks that is one of the most important factors to them. Your wrong to approach them as you are. It would be better in your interests to show the respect of approaching them with consideration.

In this thread we are attempting to find better ways to communicate. NOT create more rules which is why I got heated over my thread. It is not an attack on you personaly. But a examination as to how to best approach things just like this.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:28:36 GMT

[quote][b]Roadkill (2/8/2007)[/b][hr] -I'm arguing from a factual foundation(And I'm not arguing incompetance per se), it's not as if I'm just throwing it out there as a strawman. People mostly adopt the religion of their parents and few people accept religion without being exposed to it at an early age. Those who accept religion or convert do so when they are mentally weak and those who try to break free from religion go through a tough mental battle(Mostly due to the hell threat). You cannot say that religion is in any way a reasonable position, any religion that hopes to survive in the secular society must cherrypick from it's scriptures and what you have to ask yourself then is, didn't you just make stuff up?[/quote]

Wow. You obviously feel very strongly about this RK, and I suspect that that is part of the reason no one has given what you consider to be a reasonable counter argument.

Let me just say that, I agree with you, religion has all too often, been part of the problem. But it appears to me that you are not willing to acknowledge that there is a baby in that bath water that you want to throw out. Let me give a few examples.

There are many people who are humble, kind, peaceful, and socially productive individuals, who are good community members BECAUSE they converted to a religion. In sum, religion does help some people to overcome other sources of bad behavior, be it secular community forces like crime or gangs, bad parenting, poverty, war, whatever.

Second, I would argue that some sort of "spirituality" is a common element in our human psychological apparatus. In short, we are not emotionless, calculating robots, and we feel connectedness with the world around us that goes beyond simple stimulus-reward associations. While religion, and the baroque institutions that have evolved from religions are a far cry from that basic human sentiment of spirituality, it could also be pointed out that marriage the the baroque institutions that have evolved from customs of betrothal are a far cry from the basic human sentiment of love and devotion, or family. It is on this basis that I think religion must be at least allowed to continue even if in some sort of "probationary" status. While it is true that religion has been guilty of bad behavior, it is also deeply connected to the human heart, and to cut it out would risk cutting out so much a chunk of the human heart that the patient would not survive the operation.

And lastly, you argue against ad hominem attacks, and ask for highly specified rebuttals and argumentation to counter each of your specific points, but have a double standard for your own rhetoric in that you make the sweeping claim that: because religion has been culpable many times, religion is completely indefensible.

I can see that you are a bit defensive about this, and though I have not (and shall not) read much more about this, It would seem that some of your debate partners here have also gotten a bit defensive. My suggestion would be that all of you simply shut up about it. All of you. You guys have been carrying on about your anti-religion, pro-religion stuff for months, and yet the major protagonists are still engaging, and apparently have not changed their positions much at all. From this I think you can all gather that, none of you are getting anywhere with it :P Sure if some new member chimes in to an existing thread and wants to discuss it, maybe then a continuation or renewal of it would be warranted, but in the absence of that, why not just accept that, none of you are gonna convince the others? At worst, continued acrimonious debates about highly opinionated topics like blanket condemnations of religion are going to harm 1BC membership, scaring away prospective new members. At best, I suppose it gives you guys something to do, but aren't there better things for you to spend your time on!? ;)

In closing, let me anticipate a potential thread of rebuttal to this post, by responding to any impending statements of "why don't you apply the same standards to your perennial debates about Democracy vs. Islamofascism Scipio!?" My involvement in certain threads on this site is motivated by a desire to make a difference in the world by preventing appeasement of totalitarianism, undermining the grip which the media culture of fear holds on our psyches, keeping politicians accountable, and emboldening peaceful democratic citizens not to become complacent and negligent in the political views about potentially malevolent political and ideological forces in far away places (e.g., Iran, Russia, China, Iraq). Perhaps RK feels he can make the same claim; I do recall him starting a number of "anti-religion" threads that referred to a specific incident (e.g., the meth smoking southern preacher thread) in which a religious person, or group, or some religious principle was attributed as being culpable. My only comment on this would be, keep it righteous, and show incontrovertibly how your blanket damning of religion is in each case legitimated by the specific example in question, and I'd say your fine. However, based on your past rhetoric, you have not shown a propensity to do this.

For example, take the meth smoking preacher. The fact that this fellow was an outwardly devout and outspoken religious man who was proven to be a charlatan and a criminal, does not show that religion is intrinsically flawed anymore than a corrupt politician in the U.S. would show that democracy was intrinsically flawed. This argument is conceptual identical to the guilt by association, ad hominem approach for which you condemn Black Owl.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:23:10 GMT

[quote]I have not voiced my opinion here because I don't really like all this talk about rules, it seems to go against what Sean intended here. I do not think there should be rules against personal attacks for instance, all you have to do is call the person on it. We are not arguing to convince ourselves, we argue to convince others and their decision should be based on the validity of the arguments, if you wish to sink your own ship then go ahead. The only thing I would have a rule for would be spamming as that can in no way be productive. I just don't like moderation.[/quote]

There is lot more that I need to respond to, but this is the most pressing.

1- Is it against Sean' intentions? Then I'd like to know from Sean. I have not heard his objection at all, quite to the contrary.
2- THIS thread is NOT repeat NOT about the rules. This thread is about code of conduct. There is a fine distinction. It is like the law and etiquette. If you break the law, you are in trouble. Thus, if you break the rules, you are so here. And as stated, the rules are in fact pretty lenient.
If you break etiquette, well, that is less chic but it doesn't really mean trouble. I have started this thread in order to get the etiquette clear. because I think the etiquette of a debating forum is not clear at all and I propose that it where threads derail and EVENTUALLY somebody winds up breaking the rules, what has been happening way in advance is that conduct has been less chic and gradually deteriorated. And IF I am right about that, having more clarity and consciousness of what is elegant, proper, clean, respectful and reasonable debating will have the effect that thread will not derail as easy as they did in the past.
It is a hope, not a certainty, but I figured, if I do nothing, then this forum is an accident waiting to happen.
Now the result of the thread will never be more than a code, or in other words, etiquette. Never will you have to face a rule from this thread and be punished for not abiding by it.
Clear?
3- Then the next point should also be clear. Indeed there need not be rules against personal attacks (or should there?), but I take it that a personal attack, under any circumstance, debating forum or elsewhere is ALWAYS a less than fine conduct and that, I suppose, should be rather self-evident.
4- The validity of the arguments -- indeed. It is my hope we will get to that as well. I cannot throw in everything all at once, but believe this: I have studied the matter for a couple of weeks even before I volunteered to become a moderator. There is SO much involved and so little is clear.
5- I do not like moderation either. I do not like bans, post or thread deletions, shutting down a forum etcetera. I do not even like standing up here and dictating the code of conduct (I could do that you know). Because I do not like authority. But if you sit back you can just watch and wait to see it slide. That is the whole point of Kring and why he left. So here is my project: let's talk about it. My function in this thread is not to moderate, not to dictate, just to make sure it keeps on going. I I have found out that it needs a lot of keep going work to do. So I do it, with a healthy sense of loathing. Because, I actually HATE moderation.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:22:46 GMT

[quote]But this is the part your not seeing. Your argument has no more basis than religion does.[/quote]

-Black Owl, haven't we been over this before?

[quote]But you are not providing any more substance than anyone arguing FOR religion.[/quote]

-I am arguing a negative and so cannot show any evidence to support my case. I can use reason and logic to rule out any of the currently worshipped deities and the god concept is a logical fallacy.

[quote]You haven't provided one fact to show a GOD does not exist yet you go on as if you have. That is where the contention really lies.[/quote]

-It is not I who make the claim that god exists, I do not have to(And cannot) show evidence.

[quote]So folks who do believe have as much right to denounce your staements as you do to denounce theirs. In giving a little ground you offer room for an individual to listen. Use some tact RK.[/quote]

-The validity of a statement is dependent on reason, logic and evidence, not just someone positing an opinion. And if I say "there's no god(Though I don't)" I am on firmer ground than anyone positing a positive. How do you not get this? We discussed it in the "So..." thread not too long ago.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

jerm — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:18:57 GMT

Rabi's comments from the "so..." thread:

[quote]I could dig similar quotes that boil down to the poster stating that he wishes no longer to partake. This is a clear indicator the discussion is derailing. One actually says: I have more to say, but I would rather shut up. Something is not right. Anybody who wrote something to this extent should go an explain in the reason thread what causes him to stop contributing.[/quote]

The reason I decided to stop posting in that thread was because I feel that it is an indefensible position to compare religion to child abuse. I truely thought that I had to stand up and say something and I wasn't sure to what extent Rk meant it to be child abuse. Refusing to give your child the medicine he needs, I would consider child abuse but I soon realized that in fact he was making an absolute statement that all religion equates to child abuse. Then I tried arguing that it didn't meet the definition of child abuse but it appeared Rk, did understand the correct meaning of child abuse. It was at that point that I realized that I could no longer rationally continue this debate with this member. Hence, "I'm done."

[quote][quote]until you are willing to drop the bigoted attitude[/quote]
Very similar: accusing the other of prejudice and such. Can we do such?[/quote]

Well I do think that comparing religious parents to child abusers is a bigoted attitude. Perhaps, though, I should have used indefensible instead of bigoted. On personal attacks, I did not feel that any of my attacks were personal or ad hominem for that matter. When it was clear that Roadkill felt this way, I PM'd him to clear that up with him. I will admit that my last post was laced with a bit of passion but not empty of reason.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:13:23 GMT

But this is the part your not seeing. Your argument has no more basis than religion does. You make some correct assumptions on religion, yes. But you are not providing any more substance than anyone arguing FOR religion. You haven't provided one fact to show a GOD does not exist yet you go on as if you have. That is where the contention really lies.

So folks who do believe have as much right to denounce your staements as you do to denounce theirs. In giving a little ground you offer room for an individual to listen. Use some tact RK.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Roadkill — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:59:40 GMT

SA:

[quote]I think Roadkill's position (and correct me if I'm wrong RK) is that all religions are equally as unjustifiable, and "evil" if you will[/quote]

-Evil has too much baggage to be used without some drive-by theist yelling "atheism is a religion too," so I wouldn't use that word. I prefer bad, detremental, etc. And unless someone is in possession of god's phone number then yes, they are unjustifiable. It's a claim from ignorance and when you start making decisions based on that you should be slapped around a bit.

[quote]I would identify the underlying source of the "evil" that RK argues derives from the essence of religion as being the human imagination. It is our imaginations which are the source of most of our problems, not any specific or particular type of institution which that facility to experience fantasy allows to form.[/quote]

-No, the undelying source is absolutism and dogma, restriction of the human species to a certain idea. I mainly assail religion because it is the most prevalent but absolutism and dogma can be found in many things, from PETA to Stalinism. The problem is that we can't destroy these concepts(If you know how then let me know) and so we must attack the forms they take. Religion is also unique in that it incorporates this "god" idea which gives moral justification and puts your "soul" on the line, PETA doesn't say follow us or go to hell, neither did Stalin, there's a difference.

[quote]Moreover, as I note above, I don't even know if I'd feel confident labeling the current strife in the middle east (Sunni vs Shiite, Hamas vs Fatah, Saudi/Egypt vs Iranian, Kurd vs. non-Kurd, etc.) as necessarily being "religious" so much as "ethnic." Ethnicity is a more complex cocktail that often includes religion, but religion rarely fully accounts for what ethnicity constitutes.[/quote]

-Justified through religion.

[quote]ADDIT:[/quote]

-I guess I've answered your added statements above.

[quote]Certainly RK shouldn't be prevented from expressing his opinion, but if he continually expresses the same thing over, and over, and over (which, I would not know, I have not read all the myriad threads of this genre), and does not seem to respond to reason, or to actually care to engage in dialogue, well . . . is that the problem that you seem to be suggesting Rabi?[/quote]

-Have you ever considered that I might be repeating myself over and over is because people don't listen the first time?

[quote]Moreover, I'm not so sure that since about 1600 AD, the inhumanity and suffering caused for non-religious causes has not far outstripped all the centuries of suffering caused by religion.quote]

-This always bugs me, comparing soldiers equipped with swords with machine guns, atomic bombs and chemical agents. And religion was greatly influential long after 1600 AD and still is in some parts of the world.

BO:

[quote]I think giving just a little ground is productive.[/quote]

-I don't just give ground for no reason, for me to grant you anything you will have to argue for it.

[quote]If a person you are involved in a discussion with rants and raves to the point that all of your points are mooted, whats the point of carrying on?[/quote]

-If you are referring to me here I would ask you to give an example. Ad hominem attacks seem to be the only thing in your arsenals nowadays and the moment I ask you to give an example you throw in another ad hominem. I argue my case and you attack me, yet you attempt to hold the high ground?

RA:

[quote]I especially would hope Roadkill to post here, since he has invested so much in his positioning, though has not voiced an opinion on this reason thread here at all.[/quote]

-I expect to receive a check in the mail soon :P . I have not voiced my opinion here because I don't really like all this talk about rules, it seems to go against what Sean intended here. I do not think there should be rules against personal attacks for instance, all you have to do is call the person on it. We are not arguing to convince ourselves, we argue to convince others and their decision should be based on the validity of the arguements, if you wish to sink your own ship then go ahead. The only thing I would have a rule for would be spamming as that can in no way be productive. I just don't like moderation.

[quote]And that sort of opens up the debatability (word?) at least at first sight. However, too many people have been scared away from that thread and too many worrying signs are coming from that thread that might indicate that something is not entirely going the way an optimal debate should go.[/quote]

-I presented my opinion and backed it up with arguement and what do I get? A page of personal attacks. The three first pages are pure personal attacks where people criticize my debating skills, and this has cropped up from time to time throughout the thread without any basis. People just see my opinion and ignore the rest, they do not take the arguements I make into consideration. All I ask for is a strong counter-arguement and I have yet to see one.

From the "So..." thread:

And other logical fallacies have been mentioned. One should not make logical fallacies, obviously, but is it right to accuse someone of making this or that logical fallacy? Please take it upstairs, will you?

-Well that's why we give these logical fallacies names, so that we can make the antagonist aware of the commited fallacy. Letting a logical fallacy slide in a discussion is hardly... logical is it? It is of the utmost importance that these things are pointed out or else there will be little point in discussions.

Arguing incompetence on the part of the opposed party -- is that right? Isn't that something that will always help shut up anybody: you do not know what you are talking about because your mind has not been made up right. Like Marx telling you have false consciousness and Freud telling you it is all subconscious, or some religious telling you your full of the devil or such? The irrefutable statement.

-I'm arguing from a factual foundation(And I'm not arguing incompetance per se), it's not as if I'm just throwing it out there as a strawman. People mostly adopt the religion of their parents and few people accept religion without being exposed to it at an early age. Those who accept religion or convert do so when they are mentally weak and those who try to break free from religion go through a tough mental battle(Mostly due to the hell threat). You cannot say that religion is in any way a reasonable position, any religion that hopes to survive in the secular society must cherrypick from it's scriptures and what you have to ask yourself then is, didn't you just make stuff up?

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Scipio Africanus — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:39:30 GMT

I see what you're saying RA, and apologize if I misunderstood the debate tone you were seeking to promote. My point with using the analogy of slavery is that I see it as being one of those unjustifiable institutions, like trial by torture, or punishment by torture, the caste system, etc. I also see the constellation of ideologies that one might identify as "Islamofascism" as being equally unjustifiable, and that was the sense in which I invoked the analogy of "should we _debate_ with a Nazi, or a slave trader." My point being, is it really worthwhile or productive to _debate_ with an Islamofascist? I personally think Islam is esentially okay, but that it like many religions has been warped by opportunists into an excuse to promote things like Islamofascism. Thus, debating with a Muslim, who is on the boundary of thinking like an Islamofascist might actually be worthwhile.

I think Roadkill's position (and correct me if I'm wrong RK) is that all religions are equally as unjustifiable, and "evil" if you will, as are any of the unjust institutions I list above. I do see his point, but I do not agree with extent to which he takes his logic. I would identify the underlying source of the "evil" that RK argues derives from the essence of religion as being the human imagination. It is our imaginations which are the source of most of our problems, not any specific or particular type of institution which that facility to experience fantasy allows to form. The health food movement, radical environmentalist groups, PETA, the NRA, there are a variety of types of groups and institutions which are equally as vulnerable to the same sort of slippery slope of dogma and supremacism which RK focuses on in religion. At first glance, from an historical standpoint, religion seems to have done far more harm than any other post-religion sort of "fantasy society," but I would suggest to him that, his concerns about religion would be better focused on the more broad psychosocial phenomenon. Moreover, I'm not so sure that since about 1600 AD, the inhumanity and suffering caused for non-religious causes has not far outstripped all the centuries of suffering caused by religion. Moreover, as I note above, I don't even know if I'd feel confident labeling the current strife in the middle east (Sunni vs Shiite, Hamas vs Fatah, Saudi/Egypt vs Iranian, Kurd vs. non-Kurd, etc.) as necessarily being "religious" so much as "ethnic." Ethnicity is a more complex cocktail that often includes religion, but religion rarely fully accounts for what ethnicity constitutes.

ADDIT: Nationalism, or the modern-day "ethnicism" (e.g., the Sunni, Shiite, Kurd distinctions) being examples of "post-religion" imagined identities which have started to serve as major contenders for the "intrinsic evil" of religions 10,000 year reign over human imaginations. I hope this makes the point a bit more clear, and not even more murky . . . RK is right to point out that hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions have died in the name of religion or religious-associated ideologies. However, I would argue that, in the post-Renaissance, post-industrial context, other ideological forms might be supplanting the importance of religions in acting as "sources" of bad human behavior. What this suggests to me is that, the ultimate source of the "evil" is not any specific institution, but the characteristics of the human mind which make it vulnerable to the lures and dogma of these institutions. Vis a vis, the title of this thread, it is the human vulnerability to perceive (think/feel) and behave irrationally, or without reason, which is the real problem. Religion is just one example of a nascent philosophical or ideological trope which has consequently evolved in many instances to act as a malevolent force for the wily and charismatic to control and manipulate the innocent and the stupid.

I have not paid much attention to the debates on religion. Partly this is because it bores me, but partly it is because I don't see the debate having much chance to really sway anyone, change anyone, or prevent anything bad from happening. I feel differently about countering what I fear could promote hateful ideologies, but debates about whether religion is fundamentally flawed or not I find to be pointless. It is a matter of opinion. Certainly RK shouldn't be prevented from expressing his opinion, but if he continually expresses the same thing over, and over, and over (which, I would not know, I have not read all the myriad threads of this genre), and does not seem to respond to reason, or to actually care to engage in dialogue, well . . . is that the problem that you seem to be suggesting Rabi?

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

Black Owl — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:24:04 GMT

I don't really know. This is going to sound very simplistic, but I'm very simple. The ability to give even a little ground to an oppossing view, regardless of wether you agree with that view or not, invites more discussion. And on a more sane adult level. Children yell nah,na,nana, and stick their fingers in there ears when they want to choke off discussion. If you can't find any agreement in a persons position it's best just to walk away. If a person you are involved in a discussion with rants and raves to the point that all of your points are mooted, whats the point of carrying on? All that does is cause frustration and anger. It is an insult in and of itself. Without a single insultive word spoken. I think giving just a little ground is productive. But on the other side that shouldn't be attacked and jumped on, or taken as a sign of weakness in that persons stance or argument. We should respond with like giving of ground, even the smallest gesture has great impact on discussion. More so when it's heated.

To bad the ME can't find that.

RE: Only on reason and on reason alone

RabiAkiva — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:05:57 GMT

I think we must get this thread back on track. The issue is not Slavery, but rather what Slavery served as an example.

Assuming Slavery is vile, we would discuss Slavery on rather different terms than we would discuss, for example, a Republican on some Republican issues when taking the Democrat position.

I admit getting a bit irritated by Scipio's way of identifying MY position in this thread: namely one of promoting a debate in which we talk to each other in the most fore coming way. Apart from the fact that that is arguably not what I have been saying and anybody can read that in my posts, but ultimately it is entirely besides the point what [i][b]I[/b][/i] think, being a moderator or not. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the question of how conduct in this place should be so that [i][b]we[/b][/i], all of us together, arrive at some sense of what is generally acceptable and what not.

And in that respect, the debate between a Republican and a Democrat on rather acceptable though debatable issues should serve as a much better example than a debate with an Advocate of Slavery or any unsavory disposition as we would enter the debate with some premeditated idea that no matter what the ideas of the Slaverer are, they are unacceptable any which way you take it. Or should we be able accept such a starting point?

I think we see it in the way Roadkill started the 'So...' thread: [quote]I see religion as a malevolent force in society, divisive and destructive. I also see people who are religious to be, well there's no other way to put this; stupid.[/quote]

Now, I have to add, that he says more: [quote]Let me first be honest with you {previous quote} I will now tell you why I feel this way.[/quote] And that sort of opens up the debatability (word?) at least at first sight. However, too many people have been scared away from that thread and too many worrying signs are coming from that thread that might indicate that something is not entirely going the way an optimal debate should go.
I would like to invite all of you the meta-issues from that debate, detach it from the subject and the persons involved, and discuss it in order to see if we can learn something here.
I especially would hope Roadkill to post here, since he has invested so much in his positioning, though has not voiced an opinion on this reason thread here at all.