Can you elaborate on this quote and give some examples? I am curious as to what you're defining as attacking. If you're religious and that is the topic at hand, of course I will scrutinize because there are some profound flaws with believing in things that have no evidential basis. I would like to make that clear by the way, there is nothing inherent about religion or God, as a skeptic I feel this way towards anything with no evidence or reason, it just so happens that religion is such a hot topic.
Do you view my posts that examine and peruse faith and supernatural happenings as hateful or as attacking those topics? I am very interested to hear your answer.
Attacking as in personal attack, attack on ones fatih, religion, beliefs, thinking, ideology, character, etc etc etc. Personal Attack there's nothing subliminal or cryptic about this, it's right out in the open. Examining and perusing faith and the supernatural is good, you at least seem to show genuine interest and actually seek out further knowledge which is also good. It shows to me at least that you may be in pursuit of understanding those things, rather than shunning them or casting them aside and closing your mind to them because of the stigmas and stereotypes attached by society to God, religion, faith, and the supernatural. For those reasons no, I do not view your posts or threads as hateful and attacking. You make some very bold bold statements, but I wouldn't call what I've seen from you as hateful and attacking.
The underlined part is something I take issue with. You said If you're religious and the topic is on religion, you are going to attack the person because "there are some profound flaws" with believing in things that have no evidential basis. Although that doesn't scream it directly, your essentially saying "Having faith in God" is profoundly flawed, and if your in a conversation with someone who does you are admitting you're going to attack them because you don't agree with that, you think it's highly flawed. Well all that is your opinion, not fact, and for you to attack someone on those grounds is wrong plain and simple. That is discrimination and I'm sure many other harsher bigger words and isms.
I want your opposition, I want your posts, and I want your point of view. Trust me when I say there is nothing enjoyable about reaffirming and agreeing with what every one else has already said. If I read a thread that has accurately stated my view, I often won't reply personally because I am not adding any thing new. That being said, I want your opposition because I feel I can show why you're wrong. There are very few intellectual threads I will post in if I cannot prove or show why my point of view is the more correct of the two (or more).
Well Sal you just explained my thinking and process too. Only difference is I don't care if I can prove my point as more correct, I know it is and I don't need to do that to know I am correct either. While you or I may want to have opposition, drive discussion, and the biggest thing of all explore and learn, my point has been that there are a whole lot of other people who don't and when you try to give them that they don't respond well. There are a lot of people who add to forums not to add something new to drive the conversation as you or I may do, but to rant about their hates and biases which oh by the way basically means you. So you're fucked and the person is just going to say the most disparaging things they can about you or what ever it is you believe so you will no longer oppose their view. If you don't more of the same with a side of accusation and super sized personal insults of all kinds which also are supposed to prove you wrong too by the way.
To parallel the situation you describe I put forth the intelligent design vs evolution thread found here:
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=108837 . SlyFox696 was speaking on behalf of intelligent design, whereas I spoke on evolution. When I would read SlyFox's posts critiquing my posts, I wouldn't anger and claim he was attacking my beliefs, he was discussing the topic at hand. This is what I don't understand, what is different between that situation and the one you describe? Clearly that thread continued with out any one exploding and being sent to prison, why is that?
I won't even get into you and Slyfox's posts.
From The Thread:
Originally Posted by Jack-Hammer View Post
Those that are against it feel it's religious dogma disguised as academics and is a violation of seperation between church and State.
Where do you stand?
That's exactly where I stand. Let's be honest now, you can call it ID but
it's going to be taught as Christianity and nothing else, certainly not The FSM church which is just as credible as any other religion in my opinion. Religion has no place in state schools,
it's divisive, opinionated and certainly in the US could never ever be taught with an unbiased eye. If you want to be taught t
,
go to a faith school but don't be forcing it on those who have no need or desire for it.
This is as usual, the Christian right trying to force their views on America and if they have to cheat the system to do it, well so be it.
That's different. Here's more.
Intelligent Design theory is people saying this: Well, we know science is making it more difficult to believe in God, so what we're going to do is allow scientists to make discoveries and/or theories, then pass it off as God without specifically saying it's God. The fact people believe this is science amuses me to no end.
What people would you be referring to dear?
The thing with this is, it depends on who teaches you it and how they teach. When I was taught about Darwin, it was by a very strict Christian, who taught it with contempt, who put her spin on things to make it seem like this was a stupid, impossible concept. IF, and I mean IF this was taught in schools, it would need to be clear this is only a THEORY and there is absolutely no scientific evidence in favour of it. Which makes me wonder whether it should be taught in SCIENCE at all. It should be part of a religion class, because that's what this is.
One is heavily supported with evidence by those with an understanding of what they are doing and the other is supported by people with a book written 6,000 years ago and religious dogma.
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of evolution, based on this paragraph, I'm going to break it down for you very simply.
The above was a reaction to some off the cuff jokes I was making, just trying to be funny and lighten the mood. Instead I got^
My biggest problem again with intelligent design is that the only reason it's being considered for science textbooks is because a bunch of Christians with no background in science at all are pushing for it. It's things like parents writing letters to the school board rather than solid research and peer reviewed studies by scientists that's getting intelligent design forced into textbooks.
If Christian parents really want this taught then they can teach it themselves to their children inside of their private homes just as they already teach their children they must believe in god as their savior.
Again it's all those damn Christians fucking it all up.
Christians use emotional and theological arguments to block science and wedge their unscientific beliefs into the science curriculum.
Yep, if only those Christians weren't around.
All of your arguments have come to:
* Who cares if intelligent design has no evidence.
* You value faith and science the same
* Scientists are afraid of intelligent design
Recognize this.
It's not just the stuff above but a lot of the arguments condescending tones, and attempts at making people simply look like idiots for saying anything contrary to a popular idea. This is one thread, and I could move on to many more.
Again I have to ask for you to elaborate on what you mean by attack? If you mean that you're defending one point of view while another figuratively attacks it, then I suppose that is what a debate is and you should stay away from the cigar loung
e.
I just elaborated the entire post above, what you describe as debate in the CL is not my issue. Remember, it was I who led the CLDL until this little mishap, I have no problem with real debate. What you go on to say though....
However if you mean: To attack one's view-point with unwarranted hostility or condescension, then I would reply that those actions don't take place in the cigar lounge (in general, there are exceptions).
That's what the Cl is, the place to attackes one's view-point with unwarranted hostility and condescension, with exceptions here and there for actual debate, especially if you are of a certain perspective.
If there is a topic on homosexuality, and your reply condemns gay marriage and gay activities, what would the following opposing arguments be in your mind ideally? I'm not asking you to type out a fictional response, but can you list some generalities you would expect an ideal reply to have? Off the top of my head, this is what I would say to this question:
- Address all the points of the quoted comment
- If disagreeing, state your counter-points
- Explain your counter-points, and why they are superior to the quoted person's points
I would say that's proper debating,
you seemingly view this as close-mindedness and hostile attacking, please explain this opinion.[/QUOTE]
You assume as much but are wrong there as you probably knew before now. I like proper debating, it's what I try to encourage. As for a response, sometimes I don't want any response, just let me say my peace and leave me the fuck alone. Unfortunately though people decide to take issue with stuff and come at you in one way or another, often times not in the respectful fashion you are trying to present. Hopefully that is explanation enough.
