Before we get started, how would you respond if someone said during a discussion, "But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of homosexual people have." Insert Black, Latino, or any other nationality/race there for more examples. Would you believe it to be in bad taste?Pot-Kettle-Black.How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
Except for the fact, Gary, that there is plenty of evidence for this all around. There still seems to be this notion that religion is exempt from criticism on behalf of it being... religion?
If we can criticize e.g. political institutions or secular institutions when they screw up, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with religious institutions? What makes them special?
Except there is real, physical evidence that these other groups have been persecuted before (at times by the "moral" religious people) in very recent times. And by persecuted I'm not just talking about harsh verbal criticism, but actual physical violence (resulting in death at times).
Can some of these other groups also have a persecution complex when it comes to being criticised? Sure thing and it's just as wrong if they use that as an excuse to avoid criticism.But criticism isn't persecution, so everybody should stop acting like they're being persecuted when it's just criticism.
How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
I'm not really offended, just tired of the lame tactic. If you can't debate properly, then don't resort to this kind of behaviour.
It's the messageboard equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Naaaaaahhhhh, can't hear you!"I would love to have some common ground, but it requires that we all (myself included) don't take criticism of policy (whether religious, political, ethical etc.) personally.
And that holds true if it's Person A praying humbly for his own benefit.
Agreed, one one level. But like I said, it may hold equally true if Person A is humbling thinking and reasoning. Is it possible that the humility and willingless to learn are the deciding factors, as opposed to the appeal to a supernatural force?
And that holds true if it's Person A praying humbly for his own benefit.Agreed, one one level. But like I said, it may hold equally true if Person A is humbling thinking and reasoning. Is it possible that the humility and willingless to learn are the deciding factors, as opposed to the appeal to a supernatural force?
+1
(wow, I think that's my second +1 post ever! Not that I haven't agreed with a lot of other posts, I just haven't posted any +1 posts... and now I'm rambling.)
|
Except there is real, physical evidence that these other groups have been persecuted before (at times by the "moral" religious people) in very recent times. And by persecuted I'm not just talking about harsh verbal criticism, but actual physical violence (resulting in death at times).
Can some of these other groups also have a persecution complex when it comes to being criticised? Sure thing and it's just as wrong if they use that as an excuse to avoid criticism.
But criticism isn't persecution, so everybody should stop acting like they're being persecuted when it's just criticism.
Do not paint too broadly with that brush. I belong to a religious minority that had an extermination order against it. It was codified as law. The army was sent against it. My religious roots have the early church fathers being shot. Families killed. Women raped. Children dying of esposure. Homes burned. Resources looted. Some of the religious here certainly know about persecution in ways that I hope you will never fully understand.
Before we get started, how would you respond if someone said during a discussion, "But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of homosexual people have." Insert Black, Latino, or any other nationality/race there for more examples. Would you believe it to be in bad taste?Pot-Kettle-Black.How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
Except for the fact, Gary, that there is plenty of evidence for this all around. There still seems to be this notion that religion is exempt from criticism on behalf of it being... religion?
If we can criticize e.g. political institutions or secular institutions when they screw up, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with religious institutions? What makes them special?
Gary, do members of your religion in the US have elevated levels of teenage suicide due to bullying, compared to the national base line? Homosexuals do. In 2008, how many members of your religion in the US where murdered or forcibly rapes as part of a hate crime, targetted at their religion? Because their where five murders and six rapes are known were committed based on sexual orientation.
The difference is that the sensitivity of the groups you point out is proportional to the discrimination and hate crimes they are subject too. Where offence is taken at the drop of a hat by many religions, their responses runs from verbal and written attack to violence physical violence and rioting.
"Proof" that 1 = 2
Assumption: A = B =/= 0
A = B
A^2 = AB [multiply both sides by non-zero A]
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2 [subtract B^2 from both sides]
(A + B)(A - B) = B(A - B) [factor]
A + B = B [divide both sides by A - B]
A + A = A [Replace Bs with As since by assumption they are equal]
2A = A [combine like terms]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by A]
=======================
Thus 4 = 5
2 + 2 = 2 + 2 + 1
1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2 + 1
2 = 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2
=D
Do not paint too broadly with that brush. I belong to a religious minority that had an extermination order against it. It was codified as law. The army was sent against it. My religious roots have the early church fathers being shot. Families killed. Women raped. Children dying of esposure. Homes burned. Resources looted. Some of the religious here certainly know about persecution in ways that I hope you will never fully understand.Except there is real, physical evidence that these other groups have been persecuted before (at times by the "moral" religious people) in very recent times. And by persecuted I'm not just talking about harsh verbal criticism, but actual physical violence (resulting in death at times).
Can some of these other groups also have a persecution complex when it comes to being criticised? Sure thing and it's just as wrong if they use that as an excuse to avoid criticism.
But criticism isn't persecution, so everybody should stop acting like they're being persecuted when it's just criticism.
I hope no one ever will - everyone should be able to express their views without the fear of physical repercussion!
Problem being is that it's mostly mainstream Christians or Muslims, who have never personally experienced anything like that, who act like any criticism of their religion is equal to persecution.I'm guessing Buddhism as far as your religion goes, certainly sounds like the invasion of Tibet by China.
How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
Not sure how you could say that Gentle Giant is offended, he is merely observing that behaviour is childish and pointing out that when an organisation does something that is worthy of critism, that it should be critised
Smurfs are a persecuted culture. It's tragic, really.
And that holds true if it's Person A praying humbly for his own benefit.Agreed, one one level. But like I said, it may hold equally true if Person A is humbling thinking and reasoning. Is it possible that the humility and willingless to learn are the deciding factors, as opposed to the appeal to a supernatural force?+1
(wow, I think that's my second +1 post ever! Not that I haven't agreed with a lot of other posts, I just haven't posted any +1 posts... and now I'm rambling.)
I would like to add an additional +1. Thank you Kirth for one of the best points made in this entire thread.
Smurfs are a persecuted culture. It's tragic, really.
No, it's with good reason. Have you heard some of their songs???
(crud, I replied to a smurf post...)
"Proof" that 1 = 2
Assumption: A = B =/= 0
A = B
A^2 = AB [multiply both sides by non-zero A]
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2 [subtract B^2 from both sides]
(A + B)(A - B) = B(A - B) [factor]
A + B = B [divide both sides by A - B]
A + A = A [Replace Bs with As since by assumption they are equal]
2A = A [combine like terms]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by A]
=======================
Thus 4 = 5
2 + 2 = 2 + 2 + 1
1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2 + 1
2 = 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2
=D
Dividing by (A-B) is still dividing by 0. No dice...
Greg
Except there is real, physical evidence that these other groups have been persecuted before (at times by the "moral" religious people) in very recent times. And by persecuted I'm not just talking about harsh verbal criticism, but actual physical violence (resulting in death at times).
Can some of these other groups also have a persecution complex when it comes to being criticised? Sure thing and it's just as wrong if they use that as an excuse to avoid criticism.
But criticism isn't persecution, so everybody should stop acting like they're being persecuted when it's just criticism.
FYI, Christians are heavily persecuted outside of Western Civilization. Not just verbally either. Anyways, The point I was trying to make is that we don't like to be stereotyped just like any other group. You, as a highly educated man, should know better than to do that nonsense.
Christians don't mind criticism. As a Protestant, I'm highly critical of Catholics. However, there's a difference between being critical and downright bashing. When I see certain individuals who are trying to blame the Pope for issues that are more due to personal individual choices than what one guy with a pointy hat at the Vatican thinks, something smells funny to me.
How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
I'm not really offended, just tired of the lame tactic. If you can't debate properly, then don't resort to this kind of behaviour.
It's the messageboard equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Naaaaaahhhhh, can't hear you!"I would love to have some common ground, but it requires that we all (myself included) don't take criticism of policy (whether religious, political, ethical etc.) personally.
This is where your point breaks down. The argument did stray from criticizing the policy into criticism of Catholics for supporting their church. Even if they may disagree with said policy, or others it may espouse. Granted, not by you.
After all the back n forth we ended up AGAIN in faith vs. scientific, etc. etc. Ground, pointless ground, that's all been covered before. Too often.
It also included personal attacks based on pointing out that pointlessness. (Is that a real word?) For one, I am pleased that there are a number of people (on both sides of the religious barbed wire) that joined in the foolishness. Obviously, the manner in which the 'discussion' was being 'handled' was offensive to more than just a few. I don't take myself that serious, and I can't take the ramblings of a handful of Paizo posters with axes to grind seriously either.
So, dancing around the issues aside, how fast would a thread titled 'The Pope is an azzhat because..' or 'Catholics are azzhats because...' be killed? Or would they? I'm beginning to wonder. To me, that's what too much of this thread contains, instead of focusing on the 'supposed' goal of the discourse.
*comment*
Thanks for ruining the fun there guy. You'd think maybe I was aware of that when I posted my "proof" (notice the quotation marks?).
You are like the guy when his brother's kid opens a present and says, "Isn't it great what Santa brought me." Goes, "Nah, me and your dad got that at K-Mart last week." And everybody in the room stares at you for a second. "What?"
Not sure how you could say that Gentle Giant is offended, he is merely observing that behaviour is childish and pointing out that when an organisation does something that is worthy of critism, that it should be critisedHow sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
So, he's just saddened? I guess that's better?
We could make a series of azzhat threads and see which ones get killed first?
Smurfs like azzhats!
So, he's just saddened? I guess that's better?Not sure how you could say that Gentle Giant is offended, he is merely observing that behaviour is childish and pointing out that when an organisation does something that is worthy of critism, that it should be critisedHow sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
Well i don't think it is desirable if that is what you mean?
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.
Mmm...which comment are you referring too.
We could make a series of azzhat threads and see which ones get killed first?
I'm saddened to think the point would be missed. Again and again. Seems to be the new rule.
*comment*Thanks for ruining the fun there guy. You'd think maybe I was aware of that when I posted my "proof" (notice the quotation marks?).
You are like the guy when his brother's kid opens a present and says, "Isn't it great what Santa brought me." Goes, "Nah, me and your dad got that at K-Mart last week." And everybody in the room stares at you for a second. "What?"
So, what exactly were you expecting?
Greg
How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Believe me when I say this, but it's not necessarily the issue of religious persecution involved that's creating the 'noise' that you're witnessing. It's more the issue involving civility or the lacking of it when wanting to create a legitimate discourse.
As for me? Left-wing or right-wing, theist or a-theist? Whatever, I'm here to talk about role playing game and boobs. The problem is that some people are role playing boobs and their game theory isn't so hot. Lukewarm, actually. ;-)
HUZZAH!!!!!!
You remind me of the guy in the latest King Arthur movie(which I loved, many hated).I have no idea if that's a criticism or a compliment... you'll have to be more specific. ;-)
I'm thinking about Bors, I think, the big dude who fought with two bladed weapons- either katar or funky-looking tonfa. There was as scene where he was introduced to the Roman pre-catholics who were all praying immediately after he saved them from death at the hands of Celts, and he went, "I wonder if this prayer thing really works...." and proceeds to pray in front of the cowering Romans, who had done nothing to help during the attack. It was a hilarious scene. I'm still pissed my favorite character was the first one dead.
Before we get started, how would you respond if someone said during a discussion, "But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of homosexual people have." Insert Black, Latino, or any other nationality/race there for more examples. Would you believe it to be in bad taste?Pot-Kettle-Black.How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
Except for the fact, Gary, that there is plenty of evidence for this all around. There still seems to be this notion that religion is exempt from criticism on behalf of it being... religion?
If we can criticize e.g. political institutions or secular institutions when they screw up, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with religious institutions? What makes them special?
Point to the other Gary.
Well i don't think it is desirable if that is what you mean?So, he's just saddened? I guess that's better?Not sure how you could say that Gentle Giant is offended, he is merely observing that behaviour is childish and pointing out that when an organisation does something that is worthy of critism, that it should be critisedHow sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
If your organization didn't act like it does, maybe there wouldn't be so much to critize. Just a thought.Immediately woulda been page 1. :)
But it seems to have a beneficial effect, though it seems you are the offended person now. :(
Repeating the need to forge a common ground.
What's desirable is for people to get off of their high horses and have a few laughs at the stupidity. And remember we are but a few internet junkies in this big, wide world. Then refocus their arguments and their mood. Much more desirable than dancing around offensive/bigoted/hateful speech with careful word crafting, especially to ignore valid counterpoints. Flip flopping from hypothetical to real worlds to suit their POV.
Kinda like not crapping where you eat. Like them darn poodles do.
And makes the tread dump (by multiple Paizo fans) viewable in a slightly better, maybe even positive, light? Oh I give up, poodles can't be viewed in a positive light.
I know this sounds boringly technical and pointless. However, I hear a lot of claims, like yours, that religion makes people more moral... but what I see is that sometimes it does, but equally often it does not.Hi, Kirth.
I apologize for being vague. Person A "being religious" may or may not make Person A more moral. I'd like to think that it might raise moral issues, and offer some avenues of reflection, but there's no need for a God there. It's just as likely for a religous person to do things contrary to his faith, or to find a way to justify terrible behavior using religious vocabulary.
(And in particular, I don't hold with the "total depravity" view of the human condition popular among evalgelical churches.)
But I believe that when People B, C, D, and E all pray for the soul of Person A, that God answers those prayers, and often than answer includes a clear path that would lead Person A towards being a better person.
And that holds true if it's Person A praying humbly for his own benefit.
I only pray for next week's Powerball numbers.
In my defense, I'd take most of that money and (first) make sure all my friends and family's debts are paid off and that they have a nice place to live and (second) give a LOT to charity (maybe even set up a FAWTLy college scholarship or somethin').
Hey, all I pray for is for God's eventual return to our world in the flesh.
Still, as I am your opposite, I must do the exact opposite should I win the lottery. I will demand tribute from my friends and family, and set up a system where FAWLTites pay me taxes for absolutely no reason.
I'm liking this "being the opposite of you" thing. ;-)
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Mmm...which comment are you referring too.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/analysis-pope-takes-on-atheist-extremism
Point to the other Gary.Before we get started, how would you respond if someone said during a discussion, "But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of homosexual people have." Insert Black, Latino, or any other nationality/race there for more examples. Would you believe it to be in bad taste?Pot-Kettle-Black.How sad that when some people feel like the organization they belong to is critized, they immediately resort to childish spamming. How incredibly immature. But I guess it fits with the persecution complex a lot of religious people have.
Except for the fact, Gary, that there is plenty of evidence for this all around. There still seems to be this notion that religion is exempt from criticism on behalf of it being... religion?
If we can criticize e.g. political institutions or secular institutions when they screw up, why shouldn't we be able to do the same with religious institutions? What makes them special?
When you and I agree on something, something bad must be ready to happen. The Apocalype? ;)
I know this sounds boringly technical and pointless. However, I hear a lot of claims, like yours, that religion makes people more moral... but what I see is that sometimes it does, but equally often it does not.Hi, Kirth.
I apologize for being vague. Person A "being religious" may or may not make Person A more moral. I'd like to think that it might raise moral issues, and offer some avenues of reflection, but there's no need for a God there. It's just as likely for a religous person to do things contrary to his faith, or to find a way to justify terrible behavior using religious vocabulary.
(And in particular, I don't hold with the "total depravity" view of the human condition popular among evalgelical churches.)
But I believe that when People B, C, D, and E all pray for the soul of Person A, that God answers those prayers, and often than answer includes a clear path that would lead Person A towards being a better person.
And that holds true if it's Person A praying humbly for his own benefit.
I only pray for next week's Powerball numbers.
In my defense, I'd take most of that money and (first) make sure all my friends and family's debts are paid off and that they have a nice place to live and (second) give a LOT to charity (maybe even set up a FAWTLy college scholarship or somethin').
Hey, all I pray for is for God's eventual return to our world in the flesh.
** spoiler omitted **
Still, as I am your opposite, I must do the exact opposite should I win the lottery. I will demand tribute from my friends and family, and set up a system where FAWLTites pay me taxes for absolutely no reason.
I'm liking this "being the opposite of you" thing. ;-)
I'm willing to bet God will anoint Joss to Archangel status for his great works. ;)
http://www.newsy.com/videos/analysis-pope-takes-on-atheist-extremismAnother thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Mmm...which comment are you referring too.
Okay I know which ones you mean yet. Thing is, i, and no athiest(public or otherwise) I know or know off got 'offended' and tried to use the fact his comments offended their 'sacred and strongly held beliefs' to make it taboo for the pope to say those things. Did we get angry? Sure, but that anger manifested as us saying 'Dude? Really? You couldn't do better than making yourself the subject of Godwin's law? Okay lets do this...' We then proceeded to take his argument to pieces. We pointed out that magical thinking and religious/quasi-religious beliefs ran to the very core of the Nazi party, we pointed out Vatican collusion in the holocaust, and 'point hat man's' member ship of the Hitler youth. We pointed out that germany had been a strongly Christian country, before and during the second world war, and that the catholic church had itself undertaken acts of genocide in history.
But what we didn't do, if gather in the streets burning effigies, or threaten bombings, or hire PI's to follow the Pope around, to gather evidence to blackmail him into silence. We didn't say 'How dare you say that, your critising of my religion is beyond belief, how dare you trespass against a social taboo in that manner.'
Gasoline on the fire!
You have managed to make Emperor Palpatine even scarier....curse you!!!!
I'm just glad we have people on the boards who can speak for all the atheists, all the Christians, all the Muslims, etc.
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.
Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
|
|
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from generalizing that atheists demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that atheists are immune from being generalized, whereas everything else is fair game to be generalized or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Wow, that's a lot of crying.
That is all.
Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from generalizing that atheists demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that atheists are immune from being generalized, whereas everything else is fair game to be generalized or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Examples of such generalisation?
Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.
*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.
What's NOT reasonable is that atheists are immune from being generalized, whereas everything else is fair game to be generalized or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
As soon as atheists agree to a central authority -- one who, according to their own belief system, is infallible in matters under discussion -- then yes, please, generalize us based on what that guy says. Likewise, if I ever register as a Democrat, then you can criticize me for Democrat policies. Etc. Until then, your point is pretty far off the mark.
It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Sic him boy!
|
|
*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
The intention wasn't to offend. That attitude is one I encounter regularly, even if the person doing it doesn't acknowledge, or isn't even aware, that's the view they're expressing. But if you feel I've overstepped, flag the post. No sense adding yet another layer of argument to this thread.
It's obvious you're posting that just because your religion is being critised.*sigh* That's the kind of crap that we don't really need to see Paul.Another thing, the atheists here are accusing Christians of being overly sensitive. However, I do recall that many of the atheists did not like what the Pope said a few months back(that's all I heard in the CRD for days upon end). Perhaps some of you could learn a lesson from that.Gary, there are two reasonable possibilities. Either (a) people have no inherent right to protection from all criticism -- in which case you can call Atheists nazis to your heart's content (true or untrue), and I can blast the Catholic church for pedophilia, AIDs deaths, and all the rest (fair or unfair). Or else (b), the magical cloak of protection from criticism that religions demand, and that most people by default give them, extends to everyone else, too.
What's NOT reasonable is that religion is immune from criticism, whereas everything else is fair game to be sniped at or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.
Kirth,
You're slightly out. Most people seem to want THEIR religion to be immune to ciritcism as it is obviously the One True Religion (TM) but all the other (false) religions should be criticised for they are tools of (insert name of personification of evil, if any).
Yap! Yap! *Starts pulling on the Wet Blanket*
"Proof" that 1 = 2
Assumption: A = B =/= 0
A = B
A^2 = AB [multiply both sides by non-zero A]
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2 [subtract B^2 from both sides]
(A + B)(A - B) = B(A - B) [factor]
A + B = B [divide both sides by A - B]
A + A = A [Replace Bs with As since by assumption they are equal]
2A = A [combine like terms]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by A]
=======================
Thus 4 = 5
2 + 2 = 2 + 2 + 1
1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2 + 1
2 = 1 + 1 [from above "proof"]
2 = 2
=D
See! Overthrow the shackles of math dogma and embrace the chaos! XD
What's NOT reasonable is that atheists are immune from being generalized, whereas everything else is fair game to be generalized or outright slandered. But that's exactly what many people seem to expect.As soon as atheists have a central authority -- one who, according to their own belief system, is infallible in matters under discussion -- then yes, please, generalize us based on what that guy says.
On the other hand, claims that "I'm Catholic, but I think the Pope is wrong about everything and has no right to speak for me" are like saying "I'm Protestant, but refuse to admit it."
I see what you're saying, but if this is the case, how is change going to come about in the Catholic faith? Or indeed, anywhere? People need to be able to break with their leaders on SOME things, otherwise we're all just drones.
Damnit Kirth, why do you have to make the rest of us look so bad?
Another +1 to your latests posts.