quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"?
I'm afraid that the religious have you beat there, KoM. There are definitely more religious people NOT in prison than there are athiests NOT in prison.
Do you agree?
I did specify "per unit adherent". Obviously you need to take the size of your sample into account; I mean, duh.
quote:gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen
So in fact, religion is well suited to people who are mindlessly scared? Well, in fact I agree. I'm reminded of the former drug addict who accosted me on the street one day, saying that Jesus had helped him when he was 'totally blown'. Yep, no surprises there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only been at Hatrack for 8 months (only six of which I've actually posted during). 10,000 covers my brief attendance here, if the number is any higher, people who've been here longer will have to modify it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's tons of better stuff. Politics for one.
But less obvious choices, which was the best Batman? Michael Keaton of course. Best Batman director? Tim Burton obviously. Almond Joy or Mounds bar? Almond Joy. Green or Yellow? Yellow, it's more flattering to my skin tone.
See, there's plenty of less volatile stuff to argue about that is just as fun.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war
It's a bit of a derail, but I hope this isn't comrade Smith's finest moment in prose. In Altariel's thread, I rather harshly criticised the use of 'finally' twice in the same sentence. A whole fragment like "because of the exceedingly great length of the war"? Dear me. At least the King James manages to rise to poetry on occasion, and without having been dictated directly by divine intervention, at that. Maybe God doesn't get enough practice at writing?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come now, mere literary criticism? Surely you are not defending the literary merit of the piece? It does not seem to me that the repetition accomplishes anything but padding.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't particularly care, it was just an offhand remark. And katharina, I am really terribly sorry I saw fit to criticise the writing in your favourite fairy tale.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in fact, religion is well suited to people who are mindlessly scared? Well, in fact I agree. I'm reminded of the former drug addict who accosted me on the street one day, saying that Jesus had helped him when he was 'totally blown'. Yep, no surprises there.
Wow! Yet another stupid, insulting, bigoted misrepresentation. I am positively breathless with the shock of it.
People convert from atheism-in foxholes and otherwise-all the time. But then again, when you're living in the world where everyone but you is stupid, I don't expect you to be surprised by this or even consider it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the devil did I say, anyway? I pointed out that this wasn't particularly great writing. Just what is the problem with that? I mean, if you disagree, fine. It's a point on which reasonable men might disagree. But what's with calling me an idiot?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything you say is calculated to offend as much as possible. That's how you get your kicks. You constantly make some of the most bigoted, arrogant remarks I have ever heard and then pretend to be surprised when people react. That makes you an idiot. The saddest part is that it is entirely by your own choice.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I do not at the moment recall what faith you profess, but tell the truth now. Do the writings of other religions have any more claim to truth than fairy tales?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, dh, I do not attempt to offend, I attempt to tell the truth as I see it. If you find that offensive, too bad.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you actually believe what you just said, I may have to retract my comment about it being by choice.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humour, sarcasm, and sarcasm, respectively. If you don't feel sarcasm is a legitimate debating tactic, by all means tell me why. I might even listen.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I pointed out that this wasn't particularly great writing"
No, you pointed out that it was particularly BAD writing, and implied that this undermined the belief that God wrote the book.
The fundamental problem, KoM, is that you manage to imply that theists are inherently stupid with virtually every comment.
It's not simply a matter of trying to explain your perspective on a touchy matter, and insulting people by accident.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I do not at the moment recall what faith you profess, but tell the truth now. Do the writings of other religions have any more claim to truth than fairy tales?
As a matter of fact, I am a Latter-Day Saint, although far from a shining example.
And according to my beliefs, yes, writings of many other religions do have a claim to some portion of truth, because God does not speak only to like-minded people according to Mormons.
----------
Sarcasm is not a legitimate debating tactic when you're constantly misrepresenting. It's legitimate only as a means of insulting-whether between friends who are bantering, which even you must acknowledge we are not-or between rivals who don't like each other.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't feel sarcasm is a legitimate debating tactic
I feel that debating tactics usually aren't appropriate for a respectful discussion.
Ones that are purposely offensive even less so.
It's not a competition. As I was reminded of today by Slash (becaus of my less-than-stellar behavior on Galactic Cactus), it is not a competition. Nobody gets anything out of scoring points.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, you pointed out that it was particularly BAD writing, and implied that this undermined the belief that God wrote the book.
That is undeniably what I believe on the matter. If people find my beliefs offensive, too bad. I am not any too fond of theirs, either.
quote:writings of many other religions do have a claim to some portion of truth
Splendid! You won't object, then, if I sacrifice you to Huitzilopochtli, so he will be able to continue his struggle with the forces of night? Oh, and by Hindu mythology, that should earn you a good amount of karma, too.
quote:I feel that debating tactics usually aren't appropriate for a respectful discussion.
Fair enough; I've never claimed to respect anyone's silly beliefs, only their right to believe silly things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM -- I'm not talking about respting their beliefs. I'm talking about treating other people with respect.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Splendid! You won't object, then, if I sacrifice you to Huitzilopochtli, so he will be able to continue his struggle with the forces of night? Oh, and by Hindu mythology, that should earn you a good amount of karma, too.
And of course because I said that writings of many other religions had claim to some portion of truth, your typically stupid remarks are an accurate representation of my point. Good job!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the idea of locking or deleting threads, so can one and all please refrain from personal attacks? It's entirely possible to discuss the issue and disagree on points without insult. You are better than this.
KoM, I feel bad on your behalf because people seem frequently to gang up on you, but I understand their frustration because it does seem at times (most times, at that) that your words are specifically chosen to offend. Based on the intelligence level you portray, I can't help but think this to be completely intentional.
Again, though this repetition may simply be filler, please refrain from personal attacks.
posted
When did I say you didn't have an equal right to consider my particular religion a fairy tale? I never said or implied that, and I challenge you to demonstrate anyplace I did.
What I take issue with is your constant implication that people who believe in any religion are stupid, brainwashed chumps. It's not that you believe it that irks, it's that you go out of your way and say so, constantly. Almost every word you say on the subject is either specifically stating it, or implying it so thick you could cut it with a knife.
It's stupid, offensive, childish and irritating when a Christian zealot constantly tells 'non-believers' that they're going to Hell for their unfaith, not necessarily because they think it-though possibly for that as well-but because they say so, constantly. So it is with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, there is definitely a big difference between saying, "I don't think your beliefs are true, and I don't find your book convincing," and saying, "Sorry I insulted your favorite fairy tale."
The first comment is not at all offensive. It's just the truth. No one can legitimately be offended by that.
But the second comment carries with it connotations that are clearly meant to hurt. Fairy tales are obviously-made-up stories that are told to little children who are expected even at their young age to recognize that they are false. For an adult to believe in a story like Hansel and Gretel or Cinderella would be preposterous.
When you call someone else's beliefs a fairy tale, you are doing more than simply saying you disagree. If you wanted to say that, you'd use different words. You're saying that they have devoted their lives something so preposterous that any sane adult should be ashamed to admit believing in it. That's an insult.
If you want to be treated like a respectful participant in this discussion, you have to learn to act like one.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I called the Book of Mormon a fairy tale; you instantly called me out for a fanatic. Since it appears you cannot come up with an actual argument to demonstrate that it isn't, that smacks to me of shutting me up for what I believe.
For the rest, here are some of your own remarks, just from this page :
posted
You didn't ask for an argument why the Book of Mormon isn't true.
I called you a fanatic long before you called the Book of Mormon a fairy tale.
I only wish I could shut you up.
And unfortunately, my calling you a fanatic does not make me one. Nice try, though. But if you think I'm wrong, by all means, take a poll!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since it appears you cannot come up with an actual argument to demonstrate that it isn't, that smacks to me of shutting me up for what I believe.
I personally don't think people have a responsibility to defend their beliefs just because you happened to decide to challenge them today. "You're rude, and I don't intend to answer you" is always a good enough response for the kinds of insults you were flinging.
I, personally, wouldn't have been too bothered by your first post on the subject, and would simply have set you straight on our beliefs about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, had that been all you said. But you moved SO QUICKLY from straight criticism to intelligenter-than-thou mudslinging that I lost interest in ever attempting to cater to you.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My glass-house-and-stone comment wasn't intended to portray you as a fanatic, but rather as someone who calls other people stupid.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admittedly, KoM has in fact stated almost exactly that, Dog -- and specifically asked if anyone could suggest a more polite way of saying it. However, nobody could provide one as I recall, perhaps indicating that it is inherently impolite.
From a hypothetical standpoint -- if someone did believe Hansel and Gretel to be factually true, would you (generic, not specifically Dog) consider it acceptable to make the same comments that KoM is making, or some variation thereof? Under what conditions and in what situations? Would it be ok to say such things about them if they weren't around?
I remember around election time such sentiments were expressed an awful lot on both sides of the fence. I personally found them rather distasteful and non-constructive, and I tend to refrain from political discussions of nearly every stripe because for some reason the statements seem more acceptable in that arena.
[/ramble]
--Pop
[Edit -- things move too fast for me here sometimes, especially when I'm interrupted by two wonderful children. No, I mean Mooselet and Superstation. *wink*]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I personally don't think people have a responsibility to defend their beliefs just because you happened to decide to challenge them today. "You're rude, and I don't intend to answer you" is always a good enough response for the kinds of insults you were flinging.
Well, that's fair enough, but it's not what was actually said. If you'll take a look at comrade katharina's post, it says, and I quote, "Don't be an idiot."
quote:I, personally, wouldn't have been too bothered by your first post on the subject, and would simply have set you straight on our beliefs about the provenance of the Book of Mormon, had that been all you said. But you moved SO QUICKLY from straight criticism to intelligenter-than-thou mudslinging that I lost interest in ever attempting to cater to you.
Tell you the truth, I don't see this in my first post, at least; that was a genuine attempt at humour. If, in the "God, you say..." thread, I had posted to the effect that "God only writes a book every five hundred years or so. He's a bit out of practice." would you have objected?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I know that's what you SAID, and that that's what you THINK. My question is, why did you choose to EXPRESS your opinion in the words you did, rather than in a respectful tone?
I think of all kinds of things to say every day, I believe most of them, but I actually restrain myself when I know that what I'm saying is needlessly offensive, and could just as easily be said in a more mature, productive way. Is it too much for me to ask other people to do likewise?
Your apparent belief that treating other people with contempt is great so long as you believe what you're saying doesn't seem to me to be much more attractive or defensible than the belief system you are attacking.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As comrade Moose pointed out, it's a bit difficult to say such a thing in a respectful way.
However, this thread is getting a bit out of hand. I'm going to take a break from posting and get some useful work done.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tell you the truth, I don't see this in my first post, at least; that was a genuine attempt at humour.
But the humor was rooted in the premise that the repetitive language implied an unskilled writer, and that Mormons are silly to believe that the writer was God. It WAS criticism. Humor was just the method of delivery.
That's an incorrect premise, though. We don't believe that God wrote the book. The book even says directly that its writer is ashamed of the written language and skills at his disposal, and assures the reader that the weaknesses in the book are his own, and not God's.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd appreciate not being referred to as comrade anything, KoM. I can deal with comrade as a noun, but as an adjective it has connotations that I dislike. Thanks.
I gotta admit, Dog (and others), I assumed the original comment that started today's hullabaloo was intended as light humor, though not really that funny. But I think it was people's previous knowledge about what KoM believes and has said in the past that resulted in the offense, rather than the actual comment. I didn't have a particular problem with it, though of course I'm not LDS. But if the same had been said of The Bible, I think I could have written it off as humor that wasn't funny.
To some degree, though, KoM has made his bed and now lies in it. He hasn't cultivated in Hatrack the habit of reading his posts for humorous content, but rather for insult. And it's relatively easy, at least for me, to find insults and take them personally when looking for them in something written by someone in sharp disagreement. *sigh*
posted
Puppy, we tried in the thread Papa mentioned to convince KoM that he could use tact to convey his positions, but every attempt was met with KoM's conviction that any statements other than his own could not possibly be the truth as he sees it. Softer phrasing was not true enough if it didn't convey his utter contempt for religious belief of any sort and his conviction that all religious belief was ignorance or delusional. He just couldn't understand (be convinced?) that he didn't have to voice every contemptuous thought about religion and those who believe--to feel the need to do so would be, in his mind, censoring him.
I applaud your effort, but I'm sorry to say, it's futile. He wants to insult and offend, he joys in goading...I think it's his attempt to evangelize his athiesm.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
