What's so interesting to me is the definition of "religious beliefs." I work with many good-hearted, well intentioned people who would identify themselves as (or at least identify with) socially progressive, economically liberal, and (for lack of a better term) secularists. I have observed a religious back-lash from these folks against the "big-three" religions of the book (I think someone here referred to them collective as the Abrahamist religions) in general, and Christianity in particular. Eastern religions (or Eastern "Philosophies") do not seem to raise much ire, interestingly enough. At any rate, I have overheard conversations outside my office door that center around: Obama, Progressive economic policies, a desire for a more secular President, Behavioral Science (I work with many behavioral scientists), Evolution, Atheism, Agnosticism and others (you get the idea). These conversations take on a religious tone and fervency all their own! Furthermore, I have found that "rational thought" is simply assumed to be attributed to the proponents of the above--agreeing with the speaker is "rational," disagreeing is not. Being a secularist is "rational," being a Christian is not. Supporting one presidential candidate is "rational," supporting the other is not. The fact of the matter is that I am a Christian, and I believe that my faith is actually very rational. I understand that their are many believers in many religions that have a magical kind of faith and who do not question their own beliefs. Often it seems that these folks have a hard time explaining their own beliefs, and often it seems that these same folks put others down for not having the same kind of faith. The OP seems to have been a victim of this mentality--the same mentality that apparently makes it easy for Bill Maher to put others down for not sharing his own (I would argue, RELIGIOUS) beliefs. I've found that it's always easier to mock another person than to really understand someone--some even make a living at it.
Azigen wrote:
Hey! Hey! Whoa now! Don't try to take your thread back with sound rationale and legitimate concern! Not when I have yet to get my pitchfork, torch, and train ticket to Renton!
DudeMonkey wrote:
Yes, but for those of us who find it difficult to get a girl to come down into the basement of our parent's house, the 45 minutes of prep-time that 3.5 requires is a non-issue. I mean, I'm not busy. Sorry. Couldn't pass it up.
Gary Teter wrote:
Um, yeah. I knew that! I was just...um. Resistance is futile!!!
Mothman wrote: I support anyone’s right to voice praise or criticism about 4e or 3.5 or Golarion or whatever they like (although I sometimes question the relevance of doing either in the case of 4e when there is so much we really don’t know); but the line should be drawn at leveling personal criticism or abuse at other posters. Discussion, great. Debate, fine. Disagreement, healthy. Flame wars should have no place here. Well stated, and I couldn't agree more. I have to say that I just to see the concern over having inconsiderate posters on these boards being a poor reflection on Paizo as a company. I would encourage the OP to do business with Paizo directly and then judge whether they as a company are worthy of his or her business. I have never seen the level of responsiveness from other companies that I have seen from Paizo on these boards. James Jacobs posted his work email on one of the boards, for goodness sake! Yes. There are those who do a disservice to everyone in this virtual community by not exercising discretion or basic civility when they post. That goes for most, if not all, messageboards. Besides, where else are you going to find a board that declares November 8 to be Erik Mona Day?
DeadDMWalking wrote:
These aren't the droids you're looking for... |