Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » don't ask don't tell
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442413 is a reply to message #442407] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 13:21   |
Pyr0man1c
Messages: 186
Registered: April 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
| Pyr0man1c wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 21:43 |
...
Edit: so yeah, carrier is probably right, you'd have to be obnoxious to assume your God is right
|
Nearly, to assume your God is right is fine.
To forcibly tell others that your God, or lack thereof, is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
To try to make your God's word law is obnoxious in the extreme...
|
If it is fine to assume that your God is right, then it is fine to assume other people's God's are wrong.
By telling others that your God is right (or that no God is right), you're just trying to help them.
But by doing this forcefully, you are impeding upon their right to hold their own opinion. This is what you consider as being "obnoxious": thinking that it would be good to tell others that your Religion (or lack of) is right, even if it offends them, and doing this to the point of actually affecting others by law is even worse. Is that right?
(sorry for the boring post)
"Sapere Aude- Dare to be wise"
| AmunRa |
and its all this "drama" that will one day end renegade...
|
Quotes| v00d00 |
A question regarding RenGuard. Because it's a client/server application, what will stop the legions of people who cheat, and can crack apps, from reverse engineering it down to it's core protocol / encryption (which I'll assume it has), and duplicating it, so that they have their own client which responds to the server with all the correct info for an unpatched Renegade, but in fact is patched.
Personally, I think you should write a server-side only anti-cheat, which hooks the networking routines in Renegade. From there, using either the help of your staff who worked on creating Renegade, or from knowledge aquired while working with the network code in Renegade, create a system to monitor hit locations (did they REALLY hit, based on calculations by the anti-cheat (stopping BH)), how much damage are they claiming, vs how much damage their currently selected weapon really does, etc.
Then, add rate-of-fire checking, complete w/ lag tolerance (since lagged client will of course, upon delag, seem to fire faster, etc), and option to simply "edit" the incoming packets, to filter out the cheat (reduce damage, stop bullets, etc), or kick-ban the cheater (admins decision, based on anti cheat config).
Is it just me, or does that make more sense?
The flaw to Renegade of course, which is the core to the cheats, is that unlike most other games, Renegade lets the CLIENT decide hit locations, damage, RoF, etc. Vs others which say, "ok, the client fired their pistol along this trajectory. Did they hit something? How much damage did they do to that target if so. Report findings to clients".
My only concern, is that there will be alot more teams of people ripping apart the hard work of your small team, and undoing what you have done. Can you keep up writing fixes / completely rewriting the protocol to counter them once they have created their OWN complete anti-RenGuard client? If not, consider the server-side only method, and solve it once and for all, with the only version changes being to fix bugs, and not complete rewrites which will really piss admins off (if it takes this long for the initial, how long after the cheaters create their own client to counter it will your rewrite take to do?).
- v00d00
|
| ELiT3FLyR |
ill say this again to all the TT people actually working on the patch. all you have to do is fix the bugs in the game. This is your role. dont get involved in a pointfix debate that you can never win (spoony has never managed to win one and hes a decent player) nor bother suggesting solutions for the faults in pointfix. just fix the damn bugs and you will all be remmebered as renegade heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442423 is a reply to message #442419] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 22:23 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 14:45 |
I'd call attempting to codify beliefs as laws "obnoxious", thus my statement is intact.
|
Not so fast; you have yet to say what the atheists ("lack thereof") have done that is as comparable to the theists "attempting to codify beliefs as laws" and how it amounts to being "obnoxious."
Till you show that, your statement is atleast only partially correct, i.e, IF the "lack thereof" is stripped out. Go on...
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God, or lack thereof, is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
Please don't mention "your god, or lack thereof" in the same line because it doesn't make any sense. The atheist reason is the same. The theists are not; there are plenty of religions all claiming they got the bullseye. I understand you wrote "your God."
Besides, theists are the ones that "tell that they are right." Atheists "tell how they are right and give ample reason to back it up to irrefutable levels." This thread is a good example.
You shouldn't mention both in the same line considering theists have the lionshare of explaining to do. Besides, your statement seems to wrongly show atheism as another "belief system" that is competing with the actual belief systems. This is not the case.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:42 |
Discussing a issue in a heated exchange is the least of a problem when one side wants to codify their views as laws with everyone obligated to obey them. Now THAT, is a real problem (re: voter guide). Read what you are saying...so which side is being obnoxious? Your statement falls apart as we are always willing to make compromises IF it is fair and just to everyone; those of faith find this unfulfilling.
|
I did say, "which side is being obnoxious?" since it is only the dogmatic theists that go to such lengths to codify their beliefs as law (re: voter guide). They have done this and gotten away with this for centuries. So now finally, atheists having the power to openly challenge them DOES NOT equal atheists being obnoxious as well. But this is what your original statement stupidly implied.
Here's a breakdown of your original quote:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
First off, when I read this a day ago, I seriously thought you have had a brainfade. Anyway:
There are 2 groups, 1 description and 1 "result" in your statement:
-faith - group 1
-lack thereof - group 2
-obnoxious - 1 description
-"real cause of problems" - 1 result
Here's an analogy (within the framework of your statement):
-invading army - group 1
-defending army - group 2
-barbarians - 1 description
-"fighting off the invasion" - 1 result
Here's an accurate matchup (obviously, your statement has to be entirely rewritten if this were to make sense) but the elements are the same for this mental exercise:
faith = invading army.
lack thereof = defending army
obnoxious = barbarians
"real cause of problems" = "fighting off the invasion"
And so your original statement, in light of this analogy, illogically says that:
-the mere act of defending from an invading army makes both sides barbarians.
-the mere act of "defending" is the real cause of problems as opposed to the invasion itself.
Even without the analogy to illustrate it; your statement still spouts the same fallacy:
-the act of attempting to curb intrusive theists makes both sides obnoxious(?)
-the mere act of atheists attempting to curb such illegal intrusion of the theists is the real cause of the problem.(seriously?)
What a fucked up hypothesis! It's screwed up because this is what theists are actually trying to do:
-attempt to worm their way into centres of power to gain influence
-attempting to make laws in their own favour so as to subjugate those who disgaree with their beliefs. (Good examples are laws regarding homosexuality and suicide clinics).
Since the actions of atheists are not vile and abhorrent as what the theists are trying to do, "lack thereof" can be stripped away from the statement. Why? Take a good look at this thread: theists say homosexuals should be kept locked up because their dogma states so. If this is not obnoxious, I don't know what it. However, the atheist responses in this thread cannot be compared to the theists because we are not telling them how to live; but refuting their extraordinary unjust bullshit. We can tell how wrong they are and have given them the irrefutable reasons; they have thrown up their hands in the air and claimed that they are still right. Both sides are not equal; one obvious side has merit and good intentions going for it.
Matching Conclusions:
-The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem; defending is not the real problem (your hypothesis states the opposite).
-i.e, the intrusion of church into the state is the REAL cause of the problem; the atheist attempt to eliminate this intrusion is not (and doesn't make them obnoxious in the least).
-Those of faith are the invading army as they are the ones doing everything they can to turn the law to favour themselves
-The atheist response to stop this trend makes them the defending army and rightly so.
-Those of faith are the obnoxious shits that have creeped into government over a period of many decades enjoying great powers of influence.
-"Lack thereof" are the non-obnoxious ones that are attempting to remove such unjust and illegal "occupation" of the state by the church.
The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem just as the voter guide (which represents church intrusion into government) is the real cause of problem. So the atheist reaction to that is NOT the "real cause of problems" and nor can it be described as obnoxious. The theist bitches were simply asking for it when they tried to shove their crap as law. It makes them obnoxious and our side the justified counter-attackers in defense of those who would otherwise suffer under the theists' dogmatically influenced laws.
So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.
And so, here is your corrected statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith is the real cause of problems relating to faith.
|
Excellent. Makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? The faithful are not creating any problems by just existing and minding their own fucking business (example; Amish); but when they act obnoxious as the wing-nut fanatics (re: voter guide, "repent or burn in hell" billboards, homophobic laws), they create the problem (and fully deserve any shit that comes their way). And please, I think the atheist bus ads are lame as well but atleast you can either take or leave it as it is because nobody is threatened with hellfire if they reject it.
It's a win-win situation for atheists. Why?:
-We want a place where people of all differences can live side-by side.
-We will only fight theist influence where it does not belong; example, in government. (We will never try to codify laws that force anyone to share our mindset unlike the theists who without shame beg to have laws enacted banning people they despise from leading a good happy life.)
At the same time however, it is a lose-lose situation for theists: Why?
-They rarely favour a secular state; they want a theocracy with their beliefs codified as law and everyone obligated to obey them.
-They will do everything in their power (including the misuse of church resources as in the voter guide) to aid in their intrusion to control influence in government thru votes. Such is their insecurity.
So in conclusion, going back to your original statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
Your statement will only be correct if we live in a world where atheists are as wicked as theists are now (across all religions)...trying to influence government to favour themselves (note that removing the 10 commandments from a courthouse doesn't count as "taking over" as government property is taxpayer funded and hence, secular). If atheists try to cripple churches, force christians underground, for example, then yes, they are being obnoxious and your misinformed, misguided hypothesis will be true.
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:24 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly.
|
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 12:01 |
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
That, or lack thereof, as you stated before.
|
Notice how this particularly vile excuse of a human being is way too eager to jump onto CarrierII's idiotic hypothesis? Anyone know why? Cos it feebly attempts to show atheism as yet another "belief system" that could be either right or wrong. Of course, this is obviously bullshit; but we can trust such young indoctrinated fanatics to not know the difference.
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442431 is a reply to message #442423] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 00:10 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 23:23 |
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 12:01 |
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
That, or lack thereof, as you stated before.
|
Notice how this particularly vile excuse of a human being is way too eager to jump onto CarrierII's idiotic hypothesis? Anyone know why? Cos it feebly attempts to show atheism as yet another "belief system" that could be either right or wrong. Of course, this is obviously bullshit; but we can trust such young indoctrinated fanatics to not know the difference.
|
You know, you're starting to sound a lot like the very people you so virulently dislike.
And what happened to:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 23:23 |
It's a win-win situation for atheists. Why?:
-We want a place where people of all differences can live side-by side.
|
Calling a dude 'vile' isn't a terribly good step.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442436 is a reply to message #442423] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 02:58 |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 05:23 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 14:45 |
I'd call attempting to codify beliefs as laws "obnoxious", thus my statement is intact.
|
Not so fast; you have yet to say what the atheists ("lack thereof") have done that is as comparable to the theists "attempting to codify beliefs as laws" and how it amounts to being "obnoxious."
Till you show that, your statement is atleast only partially correct, i.e, IF the "lack thereof" is stripped out. Go on...
|
From the perspective of those who hold faith, atheists attempting to enforce secularism is, I'm sure, obnoxious.
| Starbuzzz |
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God, or lack thereof, is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
Please don't mention "your god, or lack thereof" in the same line because it doesn't make any sense. The atheist reason is the same. The theists are not; there are plenty of religions all claiming they got the bullseye. I understand you wrote "your God."
|
Does it help if I phrase it as "Your God, or insistance upon a lack thereof,"?
| Starbuzzz |
Besides, theists are the ones that "tell that they are right." Atheists "tell how they are right and give ample reason to back it up to irrefutable levels." This thread is a good example.
|
"Without faith, I [God] am nothing" - and I'm not even a thiest.
| Starbuzzz |
You shouldn't mention both in the same line considering theists have the lionshare of explaining to do. Besides, your statement seems to wrongly show atheism as another "belief system" that is competing with the actual belief systems. This is not the case.
|
Re-read it with my alternative phrasing proposed above, does that help?
| Starbuzzz |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:42 |
Discussing a issue in a heated exchange is the least of a problem when one side wants to codify their views as laws with everyone obligated to obey them. Now THAT, is a real problem (re: voter guide). Read what you are saying...so which side is being obnoxious? Your statement falls apart as we are always willing to make compromises IF it is fair and just to everyone; those of faith find this unfulfilling.
|
I did say, "which side is being obnoxious?" since it is only the dogmatic theists that go to such lengths to codify their beliefs as law (re: voter guide). They have done this and gotten away with this for centuries. So now finally, atheists having the power to openly challenge them DOES NOT equal atheists being obnoxious as well. But this is what your original statement stupidly implied.
|
Only the "dogmatic thiests"? I note that many countries encode secularism as law... if only to keep the thiests from arguing.
I should indicate that I am not in favour of "Don't ask, don't tell", or any other idiotic law that undermines equality in a diverse society.
| Starbuzzz |
Here's a breakdown of your original quote:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
First off, when I read this a day ago, I seriously thought you have had a brainfade. Anyway:
There are 2 groups, 1 description and 1 "result" in your statement:
-faith - group 1
-lack thereof - group 2
-obnoxious - 1 description
-"real cause of problems" - 1 result
Here's an analogy (within the framework of your statement):
-invading army - group 1
-defending army - group 2
-barbarians - 1 description
-"fighting off the invasion" - 1 result
Here's an accurate matchup (obviously, your statement has to be entirely rewritten if this were to make sense) but the elements are the same for this mental exercise:
faith = invading army.
lack thereof = defending army
obnoxious = barbarians
"real cause of problems" = "fighting off the invasion"
|
Steady on - Permit me to clarify: I've nothing against holding faith in private, or in the company of others of the same faith. I've everything against using your faith as a reason to do evil.
This goes for athiests as well - if you're preaching tolerance, prevent only evil, not the holding of faith for its own sake.
Does that help?
Stuff you wrote because I wasn't clear
| Starbuzzz |
And so your original statement, in light of this analogy, illogically says that:
-the mere act of defending from an invading army makes both sides barbarians.
-the mere act of "defending" is the real cause of problems as opposed to the invasion itself.
Even without the analogy to illustrate it; your statement still spouts the same fallacy:
-the act of attempting to curb intrusive theists makes both sides obnoxious(?)
-the mere act of atheists attempting to curb such illegal intrusion of the theists is the real cause of the problem.(seriously?)
What a fucked up hypothesis! It's screwed up because this is what theists are actually trying to do:
-attempt to worm their way into centres of power to gain influence
-attempting to make laws in their own favour so as to subjugate those who disgaree with their beliefs. (Good examples are laws regarding homosexuality and suicide clinics).
Since the actions of atheists are not vile and abhorrent as what the theists are trying to do, "lack thereof" can be stripped away from the statement. Why? Take a good look at this thread: theists say homosexuals should be kept locked up because their dogma states so. If this is not obnoxious, I don't know what it. However, the atheist responses in this thread cannot be compared to the theists because we are not telling them how to live; but refuting their extraordinary unjust bullshit. We can tell how wrong they are and have given them the irrefutable reasons; they have thrown up their hands in the air and claimed that they are still right. Both sides are not equal; one obvious side has merit and good intentions going for it.
Matching Conclusions:
-The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem; defending is not the real problem (your hypothesis states the opposite).
-i.e, the intrusion of church into the state is the REAL cause of the problem; the atheist attempt to eliminate this intrusion is not (and doesn't make them obnoxious in the least).
-Those of faith are the invading army as they are the ones doing everything they can to turn the law to favour themselves
-The atheist response to stop this trend makes them the defending army and rightly so.
-Those of faith are the obnoxious shits that have creeped into government over a period of many decades enjoying great powers of influence.
-"Lack thereof" are the non-obnoxious ones that are attempting to remove such unjust and illegal "occupation" of the state by the church.
The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem just as the voter guide (which represents church intrusion into government) is the real cause of problem. So the atheist reaction to that is NOT the "real cause of problems" and nor can it be described as obnoxious. The theist bitches were simply asking for it when they tried to shove their crap as law. It makes them obnoxious and our side the justified counter-attackers in defense of those who would otherwise suffer under the theists' dogmatically influenced laws.
|
This bit is interesting, emphasis added:
| Starbuzzz |
So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.
|
Apparently, athiests have never attempted to subjugate anyone...
As mentioned, upholding equality is fine, that includes permitting people to hold faith. You are seem to be pushing for a complete removal of faith (from the world), because a few people use it as an excuse or reason to do evil.
Carrying on:
| Starbuzzz |
And so, here is your corrected statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith is the real cause of problems relating to faith.
|
Excellent. Makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? The faithful are not creating any problems by just existing and minding their own fucking business (example; Amish); but when they act obnoxious as the wing-nut fanatics (re: voter guide, "repent or burn in hell" billboards, homophobic laws), they create the problem (and fully deserve any shit that comes their way). And please, I think the atheist bus ads are lame as well but atleast you can either take or leave it as it is because nobody is threatened with hellfire if they reject it.
|
Some people find the lack of hellfire a scary idea. They won't be able to take it or leave it.
| Starbuzzz |
It's a win-win situation for atheists. Why?:
-We want a place where people of all differences can live side-by side.
-We will only fight theist influence where it does not belong; example, in government. (We will never try to codify laws that force anyone to share our mindset unlike the theists who without shame beg to have laws enacted banning people they despise from leading a good happy life.)
At the same time however, it is a lose-lose situation for theists: Why?
-They rarely favour a secular state; they want a theocracy with their beliefs codified as law and everyone obligated to obey them.
-They will do everything in their power (including the misuse of church resources as in the voter guide) to aid in their intrusion to control influence in government thru votes. Such is their insecurity.
So in conclusion, going back to your original statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
Your statement will only be correct if we live in a world where atheists are as wicked as theists are now (across all religions)...trying to influence government to favour themselves (note that removing the 10 commandments from a courthouse doesn't count as "taking over" as government property is taxpayer funded and hence, secular). If atheists try to cripple churches, force christians underground, for example, then yes, they are being obnoxious and your misinformed, misguided hypothesis will be true.
|
Athiests, are, at the end of the day, human beings. Some human beings are evil, and will try to do evil things. The venn diagram will overlap; I'm sure somewhere in the world right now, there is an athiestic Gov't advisor pushing an evil agenda.
| Starbuzzz |
| Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:24 |
| CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 |
Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly.
|
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 12:01 |
| CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
That, or lack thereof, as you stated before.
|
Notice how this particularly vile excuse of a human being is way too eager to jump onto CarrierII's idiotic hypothesis? Anyone know why? Cos it feebly attempts to show atheism as yet another "belief system" that could be either right or wrong. Of course, this is obviously bullshit; but we can trust such young indoctrinated fanatics to not know the difference.
|
And you have irrefutable proof of God's non-existence? Wow. The whole point of faith, is... well... faith.
Athiests believe there is no God. Unless you show me proof, I will continue to say so.
Another attempt at clarification: I was using obnoxious as a byword for "doing evil, making others change, or otherwise not being nice".
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442437 is a reply to message #442436] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 04:41 |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 04:58 |
Athiests believe there is no God. Unless you show me proof, I will continue to say so.
|
Atheism by definition is a complete lack of theism. It is not a belief that God does not exist, it's a total absence of belief in his existance.
I'm not saying you're doing it deliberately, but your arguement has been used by many others before, and it is a poor attempt to try and group atheists in with other belief systems. They simply do not fit into that catagory.
You can try and fool some stupid atheists into saying "I believe that God does not exist". In reality though, most of them will say (unless lead and pushed into saying) that "I do not believe in God".
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442441 is a reply to message #442436] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 06:02 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 03:58 |
From the perspective of those who hold faith, atheists attempting to enforce secularism is, I'm sure, obnoxious.
|
Yes, for exactly the same reason that from a dictator's perspective, democracy and those who insist upon it are "obnoxious". EXACTLY the same reason.
| Quote: |
Does it help if I phrase it as "Your God, or insistance upon a lack thereof,"?
|
No; if there really was a god I'd still be very firmly in favour of secular democracy.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz |
Besides, theists are the ones that "tell that they are right." Atheists "tell how they are right and give ample reason to back it up to irrefutable levels." This thread is a good example.
|
"Without faith, I [God] am nothing" - and I'm not even a thiest.
|
it's true. if you don't buy into the ridiculous con known as "faith", religions do look very silly indeed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I did say, "which side is being obnoxious?" since it is only the dogmatic theists that go to such lengths to codify their beliefs as law (re: voter guide). They have done this and gotten away with this for centuries. So now finally, atheists having the power to openly challenge them DOES NOT equal atheists being obnoxious as well. But this is what your original statement stupidly implied.
|
Only the "dogmatic thiests"? I note that many countries encode secularism as law... if only to keep the thiests from arguing.
|
which is not the same thing at all. Having a secular country is nothing at all comparable to wanting a Christian (for example) country.
| Quote: |
This bit is interesting, emphasis added:
| Starbuzzz |
So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.
|
Apparently, athiests have never attempted to subjugate anyone...
|
that was a waste of a sentence
| Quote: |
As mentioned, upholding equality is fine, that includes permitting people to hold faith. You are seem to be pushing for a complete removal of faith (from the world), because a few people use it as an excuse or reason to do evil.
|
no, not a complete removal of religion, just a limit on the enormous power it has, much of which is not just "used to do evil", but IS evil. Telling someone they're going to be tortured for not agreeing with your religion? THIS IS EVIL, and it's a mainstream religious position - you don't need to talk to the bin ladens of the world to find it. It's propagated to children all over the world in supposedly civilised countries and we fucking tolerate it, why?
[quote]| Starbuzzz |
And so, here is your corrected statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith is the real cause of problems relating to faith.
|
Excellent. Makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? The faithful are not creating any problems by just existing and minding their own fucking business (example; Amish)
|
given how badly they mistreat their children, i would hope for religion's sake that a better example of "not creating any problems" could be found than the Amish
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
but when they act obnoxious as the wing-nut fanatics (re: voter guide, "repent or burn in hell" billboards, homophobic laws), they create the problem (and fully deserve any shit that comes their way). And please, I think the atheist bus ads are lame as well but atleast you can either take or leave it as it is because nobody is threatened with hellfire if they reject it.
|
Some people find the lack of hellfire a scary idea. They won't be able to take it or leave it.
|
i expect a heroin addict finds the lack of heroin a scary idea, it's still much better for him
| Quote: |
Athiests, are, at the end of the day, human beings. Some human beings are evil, and will try to do evil things. The venn diagram will overlap; I'm sure somewhere in the world right now, there is an athiestic Gov't advisor pushing an evil agenda.
|
and if there was, you'd find atheists in civilised countries protesting against it and sticking up for the victims of the regime no matter what religion the victims happened to be.
yes, some humans are evil and will do evil things, but in an atheist's case there's no holy book telling him to do evil things, as - for example - the bible and qur'an repeatedly do.
sure, some atheists are bad, because atheism is simply the rejection of theism and that's all it is. it doesn't necessarily say anything else about you. it's like saying some non-smokers live unhealthy lifestyles.
| Quote: |
And you have irrefutable proof of God's non-existence? Wow. The whole point of faith, is... well... faith.
Athiests believe there is no God. Unless you show me proof, I will continue to say so.
|
i can see that despite supposedly not being a theist, you've fallen for the faith con.
Please explain what is good about "faith", i.e. the concept that lack of evidence is a good thing; that it is praiseworthy to believe things without a good reason to believe them.
secondly, you also seem to've fallen for the theist's definition of "atheism". an atheist needn't assert the non-existence of any particular god; he simply rejects theism, i.e. the EXTREMELY SPECIFIC claims made by religions.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442443 is a reply to message #442441] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 07:35 |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 13:02 |
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 03:58 |
From the perspective of those who hold faith, atheists attempting to enforce secularism is, I'm sure, obnoxious.
|
Yes, for exactly the same reason that from a dictator's perspective, democracy and those who insist upon it are "obnoxious". EXACTLY the same reason.
|
Doesn't stop it causing offense, I never claimed it was a reason to stop enforcing state secularism.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Does it help if I phrase it as "Your God, or insistance upon a lack thereof,"?
|
No; if there really was a god I'd still be very firmly in favour of secular democracy.
|
A hypothetical God might not be in favour of secularism, but that's an entire discussion of its own. 
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz |
Besides, theists are the ones that "tell that they are right." Atheists "tell how they are right and give ample reason to back it up to irrefutable levels." This thread is a good example.
|
"Without faith, I [God] am nothing" - and I'm not even a thiest.
|
it's true. if you don't buy into the ridiculous con known as "faith", religions do look very silly indeed.
|
Faith is the belief in something. We speak of "faith in humanity", for instance.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I did say, "which side is being obnoxious?" since it is only the dogmatic theists that go to such lengths to codify their beliefs as law (re: voter guide). They have done this and gotten away with this for centuries. So now finally, atheists having the power to openly challenge them DOES NOT equal atheists being obnoxious as well. But this is what your original statement stupidly implied.
|
Only the "dogmatic thiests"? I note that many countries encode secularism as law... if only to keep the thiests from arguing.
|
which is not the same thing at all. Having a secular country is nothing at all comparable to wanting a Christian (for example) country.
|
Not from your perspective, doesn't make your perspective (IE, secularism) the best (or indeed, worst) option from someone else's perspective, though.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
This bit is interesting, emphasis added:
| Starbuzzz |
So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.
|
Apparently, athiests have never attempted to subjugate anyone...
|
that was a waste of a sentence
|
Starbuzz is attempting to suggest that only thiests do wrong. I don't think that is accurate, I just summed it up poetically.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
As mentioned, upholding equality is fine, that includes permitting people to hold faith. You are seem to be pushing for a complete removal of faith (from the world), because a few people use it as an excuse or reason to do evil.
|
no, not a complete removal of religion, just a limit on the enormous power it has, much of which is not just "used to do evil", but IS evil. Telling someone they're going to be tortured for not agreeing with your religion? THIS IS EVIL, and it's a mainstream religious position - you don't need to talk to the bin ladens of the world to find it. It's propagated to children all over the world in supposedly civilised countries and we fucking tolerate it, why?
|
I have several Christian friends who keep their faith to themselves, and have never once asserted to myself, nor anyone else, as far as I'm aware, that non-believers will be "tortured", or otherwise persecuted or punished.
Once again, it's the "being obnoxious" thing - forcibly telling people they will "go to hell" if they don't believe is wrong. (Free speech otherwise protects them. If they wish to post stupid billboards, that's fine. We can all have a good laugh)
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz |
And so, here is your corrected statement:
| Quote: |
Being obnoxious about your faith is the real cause of problems relating to faith.
|
Excellent. Makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? The faithful are not creating any problems by just existing and minding their own fucking business (example; Amish)
|
given how badly they mistreat their children, i would hope for religion's sake that a better example of "not creating any problems" could be found than the Amish
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
but when they act obnoxious as the wing-nut fanatics (re: voter guide, "repent or burn in hell" billboards, homophobic laws), they create the problem (and fully deserve any shit that comes their way). And please, I think the atheist bus ads are lame as well but atleast you can either take or leave it as it is because nobody is threatened with hellfire if they reject it.
|
Some people find the lack of hellfire a scary idea. They won't be able to take it or leave it.
|
i expect a heroin addict finds the lack of heroin a scary idea, it's still much better for him
|
Implying that all faith is as bad as heroin. Again, needing to distinguish between harmless faith (eg: attending church) and harmful faith (eg: encouraging radicalisation of communities, children etc).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Athiests, are, at the end of the day, human beings. Some human beings are evil, and will try to do evil things. The venn diagram will overlap; I'm sure somewhere in the world right now, there is an athiestic Gov't advisor pushing an evil agenda.
|
and if there was, you'd find atheists in civilised countries protesting against it and sticking up for the victims of the regime no matter what religion the victims happened to be.
yes, some humans are evil and will do evil things, but in an atheist's case there's no holy book telling him to do evil things, as - for example - the bible and qur'an repeatedly do.
sure, some atheists are bad, because atheism is simply the rejection of theism and that's all it is. it doesn't necessarily say anything else about you. it's like saying some non-smokers live unhealthy lifestyles.
|
I already agree. See harmful faith vs harmless faith.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
And you have irrefutable proof of God's non-existence? Wow. The whole point of faith, is... well... faith.
Athiests believe there is no God. Unless you show me proof, I will continue to say so.
|
i can see that despite supposedly not being a theist, you've fallen for the faith con.
Please explain what is good about "faith", i.e. the concept that lack of evidence is a good thing; that it is praiseworthy to believe things without a good reason to believe them.
|
Faith that some people wanted me to be alive stopped me killing myself. I can't prove my worth to them, to myself, but it stopped me.
| Quote: |
secondly, you also seem to've fallen for the theist's definition of "atheism". an atheist needn't assert the non-existence of any particular god; he simply rejects theism, i.e. the EXTREMELY SPECIFIC claims made by religions.
|
I apologise.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442444 is a reply to message #442443] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 07:56 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 08:35 |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 13:02 |
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 03:58 |
From the perspective of those who hold faith, atheists attempting to enforce secularism is, I'm sure, obnoxious.
|
Yes, for exactly the same reason that from a dictator's perspective, democracy and those who insist upon it are "obnoxious". EXACTLY the same reason.
|
Doesn't stop it causing offense, I never claimed it was a reason to stop enforcing state secularism.
|
offending dictators and theocrats is usually a sign that you're doing something right
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Does it help if I phrase it as "Your God, or insistance upon a lack thereof,"?
|
No; if there really was a god I'd still be very firmly in favour of secular democracy.
|
A hypothetical God might not be in favour of secularism, but that's an entire discussion of its own.
|
yes, we can have it very quickly
1. prove there's a god
2. prove that what this god wants is what the holy book says he wants
3. explain why his wishes trump democracy
nobody's done the first one never mind all three
| Quote: |
Faith is the belief in something. We speak of "faith in humanity", for instance.
|
i was talking about the most common usage of the word "faith". if you meant a general positive opinion instead then that's obviously an entirely different question.
| Quote: |
Not from your perspective, doesn't make your perspective (IE, secularism) the best (or indeed, worst) option from someone else's perspective, though.
|
a secular democracy is the best option for everybody. religious countries are only good for a small minority of one particular religion, and bad for everybody else - including, usually, many people from that religion.
| Quote: |
I have several Christian friends who keep their faith to themselves, and have never once asserted to myself, nor anyone else, as far as I'm aware, that non-believers will be "tortured", or otherwise persecuted or punished.
|
If they haven't said so, has it occurred to you to wonder if they think so? If I thought a fellow human being was in danger of being tortured, the very least I'd do is warn them - even if it was someone I didn't like. Friends?
| Quote: |
Once again, it's the "being obnoxious" thing - forcibly telling people they will "go to hell" if they don't believe is wrong. (Free speech otherwise protects them. If they wish to post stupid billboards, that's fine. We can all have a good laugh)
|
Free speech protects them? I assume you mean it also protects someone calling in a bomb threat, for example, or any conman who lies to you to get your money, or someone who tells you he'll kick your ass if you don't hand over your wallet. Does the word "coercion" mean anything to you?
| Quote: |
Implying that all faith is as bad as heroin. Again, needing to distinguish between harmless faith (eg: attending church) and harmful faith (eg: encouraging radicalisation of communities, children etc).
|
I didn't compare heroin to 'faith', I compared it to hell. This comparison is unfair to heroin; heroin is absolutely nowhere near as bad as hell.
| Quote: |
Faith that some people wanted me to be alive stopped me killing myself. I can't prove my worth to them, to myself, but it stopped me.
|
Did you have a good reason to think that? I'm not asking for lab results, I'm asking did you have a good reason to think "these people wanted me to be alive"; if not, why did you think it?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442446 is a reply to message #442444] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 08:17 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 09:56 |
| Quote: |
Faith that some people wanted me to be alive stopped me killing myself. I can't prove my worth to them, to myself, but it stopped me.
|
Did you have a good reason to think that? I'm not asking for lab results, I'm asking did you have a good reason to think "these people wanted me to be alive"; if not, why did you think it?
|
That's pretty cold blooded, Spoony.
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442451 is a reply to message #442444] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 09:38 |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 14:56 |
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 08:35 |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 13:02 |
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 03:58 |
From the perspective of those who hold faith, atheists attempting to enforce secularism is, I'm sure, obnoxious.
|
Yes, for exactly the same reason that from a dictator's perspective, democracy and those who insist upon it are "obnoxious". EXACTLY the same reason.
|
Doesn't stop it causing offense, I never claimed it was a reason to stop enforcing state secularism.
|
offending dictators and theocrats is usually a sign that you're doing something right
|
Only right in your opinion, that your opinion maybe more justifiable is of little difference to those who care neither for your opinion nor the justification. (That's not me, incidentally, I'm merely pointing out that a lot of people who live in religious states like it. Sure, some people don't like it, and the humanitarian record isn't good either)
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Does it help if I phrase it as "Your God, or insistance upon a lack thereof,"?
|
No; if there really was a god I'd still be very firmly in favour of secular democracy.
|
A hypothetical God might not be in favour of secularism, but that's an entire discussion of its own.
|
yes, we can have it very quickly
1. prove there's a god
2. prove that what this god wants is what the holy book says he wants
3. explain why his wishes trump democracy
nobody's done the first one never mind all three
|
The hypothetical God in the scenario I created with that sentence isn't about holy books and proof. He's more about using lightning bolts on people he doesn't like. It was a joke, hence the ":d" smiley.
I see where the confusion came from (my lack of an editor) - Let me try again: In a hypothetical world with a powerful deity that certifiably exists - secularism may not be the best option in terms of long term survival (due to aforementioned lightning bolts).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Faith is the belief in something. We speak of "faith in humanity", for instance.
|
i was talking about the most common usage of the word "faith". if you meant a general positive opinion instead then that's obviously an entirely different question.
|
Having a generally positive opinion about a species hardwired for selfishness (due to evolution, struggle to survive etc) is hard, thus it requires a belief people can act better than their worst - that is having "faith in humanity" - not having "faith in humanity" is feeling that all people will be selfish etc.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Not from your perspective, doesn't make your perspective (IE, secularism) the best (or indeed, worst) option from someone else's perspective, though.
|
a secular democracy is the best option for everybody. religious countries are only good for a small minority of one particular religion, and bad for everybody else - including, usually, many people from that religion.
|
Not in the opinion of those who benefit from a non-secular arrangement.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I have several Christian friends who keep their faith to themselves, and have never once asserted to myself, nor anyone else, as far as I'm aware, that non-believers will be "tortured", or otherwise persecuted or punished.
|
If they haven't said so, has it occurred to you to wonder if they think so? If I thought a fellow human being was in danger of being tortured, the very least I'd do is warn them - even if it was someone I didn't like. Friends?
|
If they do think so, I'm not too scared of what someone else thinks (or says, until their speech goes from a general threat to a specific one) - to be paranoid of what other people's thoughts are is a shortcut to madness, for you will never be able to tell what others are thinking. The good news is it doesn't matter, until their thoughts become actions, they can't touch you. This isn't "Inception" (which is a good movie).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Once again, it's the "being obnoxious" thing - forcibly telling people they will "go to hell" if they don't believe is wrong. (Free speech otherwise protects them. If they wish to post stupid billboards, that's fine. We can all have a good laugh)
|
Free speech protects them? I assume you mean it also protects someone calling in a bomb threat, for example, or any conman who lies to you to get your money, or someone who tells you he'll kick your ass if you don't hand over your wallet. Does the word "coercion" mean anything to you?
|
See the word "forcibly" in italics? We're on the same page. (I don't find a written message at all scary, unless the threat is specific - I don't think we'll ever see billboards insisting that a "Mr J. Smith" of <some address> must convert or we'll attack him", not least because the paper trail will easily lead to the people who had it displayed)
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Implying that all faith is as bad as heroin. Again, needing to distinguish between harmless faith (eg: attending church) and harmful faith (eg: encouraging radicalisation of communities, children etc).
|
I didn't compare heroin to 'faith', I compared it to hell. This comparison is unfair to heroin; heroin is absolutely nowhere near as bad as hell.
|
Perhaps my fault for not being clear: when I said "... find a lack of hellfire scary", I meant the whole afterlife shebang that religions like to peddle - death scares a lot of people, with good reason, it's very damn scary.
Edit: Expanding upon this point: these people also can't see how a world could work without threats like eternal damnation to keep people from misbehaving.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Faith that some people wanted me to be alive stopped me killing myself. I can't prove my worth to them, to myself, but it stopped me.
|
Did you have a good reason to think that? I'm not asking for lab results, I'm asking did you have a good reason to think "these people wanted me to be alive"; if not, why did you think it?
|
See reborn's post. I'm glad you display that much compassion towards your fellow man. One of the nice things about my Christian friends is the amount of compassion they have, which they assure me is related to their faith...
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Tue, 11 January 2011 09:40] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442453 is a reply to message #442451] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 11:09 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 10:38 |
Only right in your opinion, that your opinion maybe more justifiable is of little difference to those who care neither for your opinion nor the justification. (That's not me, incidentally, I'm merely pointing out that a lot of people who live in religious states like it. Sure, some people don't like it, and the humanitarian record isn't good either)
|
across the board.
| Quote: |
The hypothetical God in the scenario I created with that sentence isn't about holy books and proof. He's more about using lightning bolts on people he doesn't like. It was a joke, hence the ":d" smiley.
I see where the confusion came from (my lack of an editor) - Let me try again: In a hypothetical world with a powerful deity that certifiably exists - secularism may not be the best option in terms of long term survival (due to aforementioned lightning bolts).
|
i was hoping you'd say that. this is what religion always boils down to.
| Quote: |
Having a generally positive opinion about a species hardwired for selfishness (due to evolution, struggle to survive etc) is hard, thus it requires a belief people can act better than their worst - that is having "faith in humanity" - not having "faith in humanity" is feeling that all people will be selfish etc.
|
you're just using two completely different definitions of the word faith.
if you're basically saying that having a high opinion of humanity is a faith-based position because the evidence points to us acting selfishly, actually no it doesn't for the most part.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Not from your perspective, doesn't make your perspective (IE, secularism) the best (or indeed, worst) option from someone else's perspective, though.
|
a secular democracy is the best option for everybody. religious countries are only good for a small minority of one particular religion, and bad for everybody else - including, usually, many people from that religion.
|
Not in the opinion of those who benefit from a non-secular arrangement.
|
uh yes, that's the minority i was talking about.
| Quote: |
If they do think so, I'm not too scared of what someone else thinks (or says, until their speech goes from a general threat to a specific one) - to be paranoid of what other people's thoughts are is a shortcut to madness, for you will never be able to tell what others are thinking. The good news is it doesn't matter, until their thoughts become actions, they can't touch you. This isn't "Inception" (which is a good movie).
|
that didn't really answer the question.
| Quote: |
See the word "forcibly" in italics? We're on the same page. (I don't find a written message at all scary, unless the threat is specific - I don't think we'll ever see billboards insisting that a "Mr J. Smith" of <some address> must convert or we'll attack him", not least because the paper trail will easily lead to the people who had it displayed)
|
and yet we live in a world where telling people they'll be tortured for not being the right religion (which of course varies) is a pretty common thing. the two main target demographics for this coercive threat are children and old/sick/dying people. and we're supposed to find this compassionate?
| Quote: |
Perhaps my fault for not being clear: when I said "... find a lack of hellfire scary", I meant the whole afterlife shebang that religions like to peddle - death scares a lot of people, with good reason, it's very damn scary.
Edit: Expanding upon this point: these people also can't see how a world could work without threats like eternal damnation to keep people from misbehaving.
|
which is incredibly short-sighted of them. what do they think police and prisons are for, i wonder?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Faith that some people wanted me to be alive stopped me killing myself. I can't prove my worth to them, to myself, but it stopped me.
|
Did you have a good reason to think that? I'm not asking for lab results, I'm asking did you have a good reason to think "these people wanted me to be alive"; if not, why did you think it?
|
See reborn's post. I'm glad you display that much compassion towards your fellow man. One of the nice things about my Christian friends is the amount of compassion they have, which they assure me is related to their faith...
|
both you and reborn misunderstood the question. i was getting towards the fact you almost certainly had a good reason to think that this is what they thought about you killing yourself, in which case it isn't faith.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442491 is a reply to message #442489] |
Tue, 11 January 2011 23:51 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Pretty interesting read.
*waits for Starbuzzz to condemn it*
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442506 is a reply to message #442491] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 04:59 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
i could deconstruct that, because there are critical flaws in all ten. but the over-riding and all-pervading error he makes is not even knowing what atheism actually is; it's the same error carrier made.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442511 is a reply to message #442453] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 06:12 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 January 2011 13:09 |
both you and reborn misunderstood the question. i was getting towards the fact you almost certainly had a good reason to think that this is what they thought about you killing yourself, in which case it isn't faith.
|
Hand on heart, I totally understood that you was trying to lead him to that conclusion. I didn't misunderstand and assume you was suggesting something worse.
I believe though that the value of human life should of occurred to you before you decided to use that point as a tool to try and make Carrier come to that outcome by himself.
I totally get that you was trying to free him from what you likely feel is an illusion, and probably a mental prison of guilt. I honestly believe you have the right reasons in mind.
However, if you succeeded and "won" the arguement, then the basis of what supposedly saved his life would of been lost. His anchor broken. Unless the new conclusion that he came to (that his friends love him) is strong enough to be the new mental anchor, you've basically led him to a very dark place indeed.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, and giving the notion of changing someones mind on the internet too much weight, because lets face it, it's a rare occurance. I would just personally think twice about it.
Although I concede that Carrier shouldn't of been so silly as to put something so personal into an online debate if he isn't prepared for someone to challenge that, I guess. Otherwise I suppose it's like a trump card you hold up that says "Can't argue with me, I played the race card, you argue then you is racist, lol". Still though...
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442513 is a reply to message #442511] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 06:24 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 07:12 |
I believe though that the value of human life should of occurred to you before you decided to use that point as a tool to try and make Carrier come to that outcome by himself.
|
the value of human life is never far from my thoughts.
| Quote: |
I totally get that you was trying to free him from what you likely feel is an illusion, and probably a mental prison of guilt. I honestly believe you have the right reasons in mind.
However, if you succeeded and "won" the arguement, then the basis of what supposedly saved his life would of been lost. His anchor broken. Unless the new conclusion that he came to (that his friends love him) is strong enough to be the new mental anchor, you've basically led him to a very dark place indeed.
|
no.
if i'd won the argument, the basis of what supposedly saved his life wouldn't have been lost, it would have been reinforced. he basically said he had faith that his friends/family (he didn't specify but we'll assume that) would have been devastated if he'd killed himself. well, it's undoubtedly true that they would have been, but this isn't a faith-based position. it's an evidence-based position. all the evidence of how families and friends react to their loved ones committing suicide (unless he was terminally ill and in an extraordinary amount of pain, perhaps) is firmly on one side. what saved his life isn't weaker by what i'm saying; it's stronger because it doesn't rely on faith.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442514 is a reply to message #442506] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 06:54 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 05:59 |
i could deconstruct that, because there are critical flaws in all ten. but the over-riding and all-pervading error he makes is not even knowing what atheism actually is; it's the same error carrier made.
|
Really? I thought it was a moot point in terms of the article itself.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442519 is a reply to message #442513] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 07:59 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 January 2011 08:24 |
no.
if i'd won the argument, the basis of what supposedly saved his life wouldn't have been lost, it would have been reinforced. he basically said he had faith that his friends/family (he didn't specify but we'll assume that) would have been devastated if he'd killed himself. well, it's undoubtedly true that they would have been, but this isn't a faith-based position. it's an evidence-based position. all the evidence of how families and friends react to their loved ones committing suicide (unless he was terminally ill and in an extraordinary amount of pain, perhaps) is firmly on one side. what saved his life isn't weaker by what i'm saying; it's stronger because it doesn't rely on faith.
|
Your response assumes his faith is based on evidence. Going out on a limb I would say you made this assumption as you're an atheist, and therefore think in terms of logic and evidence.
It's likely that your assumption is right, but what if it isn't? You take away that faith and he is left with fuck all.
There's a man who I work with who lost a child a year ago. He was devastated and nly carried on living because he had Two other children. I cannot imagine what he must of felt. I probably would end my life if I was in a similar situation, only having the One child, currently.
He found Christianity, and this has had a massive positive effect on his attitude.
He is ofcourse still sad, but he went from a broken man, to One that can go to work, smile and function as a father to his remaining children.
I am happy to not see him shattered.
Now you may say that the church caught him at his very most vunerable, and preyed on that. For him though, having faith has let him carry on.
Even if it is a lie (which I am not suggesting either way to be honest), surely he is better for the lie?
I'm not so sure that therapy, counselling or other sources would of had the same effect.
My point is that for some people, faith litterally is a life line.
[Updated on: Wed, 12 January 2011 08:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442532 is a reply to message #442519] |
Wed, 12 January 2011 11:28 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Quote: |
Your response assumes his faith is based on evidence. Going out on a limb I would say you made this assumption as you're an atheist, and therefore think in terms of logic and evidence.
It's likely that your assumption is right, but what if it isn't? You take away that faith and he is left with fuck all.
|
if nobody had ever conned him into thinking faith was a good thing, he wouldn't have been in the predicament in the first place. he wouldn't need to say "i have faith that my family/friends will be crushed if i commit suicide"; remove the bullshit con that is 'faith', cut the first four words of the sentence and it not only still works, it's much better.
| Quote: |
There's a man who I work with who lost a child a year ago. He was devastated and nly carried on living because he had Two other children. I cannot imagine what he must of felt. I probably would end my life if I was in a similar situation, only having the One child, currently.
He found Christianity, and this has had a massive positive effect on his attitude.
He is ofcourse still sad, but he went from a broken man, to One that can go to work, smile and function as a father to his remaining children.
I am happy to not see him shattered.
Now you may say that the church caught him at his very most vunerable, and preyed on that. For him though, having faith has let him carry on.
Even if it is a lie (which I am not suggesting either way to be honest), surely he is better for the lie?
|
one must not be absolutist. in almost every situation honesty is the best policy, though situations can be found where it isn't (the usually cited example is when the nazis knock on your door and ask you if you know the location of any jews)
sure, if someone lies to you about what's happening to a dead loved one it may well make you feel better, but that's a subjective thing. i don't want to be lied to about that and i don't want anyone assuming i would.
i would be curious to know just how he "found" christianity. i also suggest that there are other things you could swap for the word "christianity" in that paragraph without having to change another word.
| Quote: |
My point is that for some people, faith litterally is a life line.
|
not really faith itself, though, is it? the article of faith might be.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 01:47:28 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01512 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
