The Continuing Saga of the Pedophile Priests

[Yorick]

Dramneks, YOUR arguments are straw men. What I have said I stand by. I'm sorry, but you totally fail to move me. Your own arguments rest on belief that the world is how you see it. Godless and without meaning. Until you entertain the notion that others may not see this, and that things may not be as you understand, discussion is pointless.

I have better things to do with my time, than argue with closed minded arrogants who use "straw man" and "ad hominem attack" as parrotlike responses to arguements. It shows scant respect. But then your words themselves show scant respect for those of faith, for entertainers, for capitalists, or those that percieve things differently.

I am sure that you will respond with a "Straw Man" or cite that I am using emotive language, but I don't care. Emotions are part of mental faculty Dramnek. It is impossible to seperate emotion from the human mind. The two are one. You yourself use emtion, yet you seem oblivious to it.

See you bright-boy.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Right, well first of all, I grasp that very well thank you, and I am playing devil's advocate and was being purposely pedantic but when you first said it you said a much more general statement, and I merely meant, for exaple, that you couldn't get it form all forms of contact, like hugging people.

o I c

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Some people (including you and me) believe that these things are untrue... doesn't mean that we are right. You and I don't believe in God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist, what if we are wrong, however difficult a concept that is for you to grasp.

Within all reasonable bounds of judgement and scientific evidence and logical argument you cannot prove the existence of god, therefore it is illogical to say that he does exist. However there are logical arguments and more that god does not exist, therefore it is much more logical and rational to say that the god does not exist.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Well, although I do agree with the majority of your argument, you really do have an odd way of debating, you say countless times that something does happen, how do you know, however far I might agree with you, you're awfully presumptuous.

That’s not odd, it’s very common.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Do not have a duty to nature?? Sorry for the choice of words, but my arse. (not an ad hominem attack, I'm not calling you an arse) If they have no sense of duty to nature, a part of which is evolution, why then do animal who don't have sex for pleasure have sex at all?? They wouldn't at all, and I don't mean duty by our standards, I mean a deep-seated, implanted in their entire species duty. Why do you think plants reproduce?? I doubt they find much pleasure in pollination, it's because nature dictates that their existecne is to procreate, and in another sense, they are more dutiful to nature than we could ever know. And as far as animals hunting prey?? How does that unbalance nature?? That is another fundamental part of nature... do you think animals invented the food chain for fun??

What I mean is that predators will hunt out their prey to extinction, for example predators will eat all of their prey even if this drives their prey to extinction, only Humans, who can rise above nature, will restrain themselves from doing so in certain circumstances thus helping to ensure their own survival.

We only exist to pass on our genes, all we animals are is life support machines for our genes,
“The blind Watchmaker” is quite interesting on this.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: All in all, after looking at your arguments, I think I know your basic problem (and logically my analysis is less likely to be biased because I mostly agree with you, and my view isn't clouded by the fact that you are of sifferetn opinion to me.) I think that you have real trouble accepting other's views, and that you are convinced that your views are right, I don't know why, maybe you are the selfish one, I don't know exactly, but you never put 'I think' or 'In my opinion' you always put definites in places where it is entirely a matter of opinion, or totally unknowable. You are a very presumptuous man, and I'm sorry that you can't be a little more tolerant of the fact that you might be wrong. Pity though, you are a very good debater otherwise.

Originally posted by Yorick: Dramneks, YOUR arguments are straw men. What I have said I stand by.

Proof?

Originally posted by Yorick: I'm sorry, but you totally fail to move me. Your own arguments rest on belief that the world is how you see it. Godless and without meaning. Until you entertain the notion that others may not see this, and that things may not be as you understand, discussion is pointless.

You simply cannot cope with any of the ideas I have put forth;
I have backed up my views with REASON and EVIDENCE.
You have largely failed to,
Instead Resorting to Straw men and Ad Hominem attacks (ironically enough your post is both of these).
Time and time again, I have stated that I will entertain the notion of god existing when SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL and NON-SUBJECTIVE evidence can be provided,
Can you provide any?
Until then your argument is built on deontology and emotive issues

Originally posted by Yorick: I have better things to do with my time, than argue with closed minded arrogants who use "straw man" and "ad hominem attack" as parrotlike responses to arguements. It shows scant respect. But then your words themselves show scant respect for those of faith, for entertainers, for capitalists, or those that percieve things differently.

You have proven yourself to be as narrow minded over this as any fanatic you might care to name, due to your wholesale picking and choosing.

Originally posted by Yorick: I am sure that you will respond with a "Straw Man" or cite that I am using emotive language, but I don't care. Emotions are part of mental faculty Dramnek. It is impossible to seperate emotion from the human mind. The two are one. You yourself use emtion, yet you seem oblivious to it.

Emotion plays no part in logic,
And indeed we can put our emotions aside so that we can argue logically and coherently without resorting to childish name-calling.

Originally posted by Yorick: See you bright-boy.

You’re lucky I haven’t invoked the TOS on you before, for your directly insulting language, and taking my posts and deliberately twisting them (which is trollish behaviour) to fit in with your own views

Originally posted by Neb: ALL arguments are based on faith at some point. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your arguments are logical. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your evidence is real and not fake. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% true, there is always an alternate possibility no matter how impossible it might seem. So therefore the one that you accept as real is the one that you BELIEVE in, the one that you have FAITH in. I love this particular argument and I BELIEVE, I have FAITH in, that it is true and logical [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/qb]

There are degrees of faith and proof.

[ 05-13-2002, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

good lord are you two still at this?

Um Dram, you mentioned "Billions" being funneled into church charities...could you please let me know what line item in the US budget that says "Money for church run charities"? I believe that the "Faith Based initiative was more about tax breaks than in spending money. Despite the liberals view that all money belongs to the government, the truth is, in fact that it is OUR money not the governments and that giving a tax break just means you are allowing an organization to keep ITS money....Not spending government money.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: [QB] Time and time again, I have stated that I will entertain the notion of god existing when SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL and NON-SUBJECTIVE evidence can be provided, Can you provide any? Until then your argument is built on deontology and emotive issues

Time and time again I have stated that I will entertain the notion of God not existing when scientific and logical evidence can be provided. Until then he remains realer to me than you are. He certainly communicates more to me than you do. Are you not real?

Subjectivity is impossible to remove. One cannot remove oneself from it. True objectivity in a human is impossible, as all knowledge is analysis of ones experience. Reading about anothers experience is still your own experience.

So, can you provide any? Until then your argument is based on illusion and negative attempts at disproof. Based on your criteria, a person cannot even prove they exist as a physical entity, nor that they love, nor that they are awake.

As I said, I've got nothing much more to say to you. Your hatred of me and my kind - A Christian Entertainer - is palpable, and your bitterness is something I don't wish to share or echo. Until you can learn to accept others differences - my differences - no discourse is possible.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Neb: ALL arguments are based on faith at some point. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your arguments are logical. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your evidence is real and not fake. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% true, there is always an alternate possibility no matter how impossible it might seem. So therefore the one that you accept as real is the one that you BELIEVE in, the one that you have FAITH in. I love this particular argument and I BELIEVE, I have FAITH in, that it is true and logical [img]tongue.gif[/img]

There are degrees of faith and proof.[/QB][/QUOTE]There is only faith, there is no proof. No "proof" or "evidence" can be proven as being real, can be proven as being 100% true. So therefore all you actually have is faith, faith that your "proof" or "evidence" is real.

And yes, there are degrees of belief. And so what? Everything is belief, nothing can be proven so everything is faith. Pure faith and belief. We BELIEVE and have FAITH that everything exists though we cannot prove it, so therefore it is pure faith and belief.

The question is, do we believe in things because they are that way or are things the way they are because we believe them to be so?

[caleb]

"And what did you expect a god to look like? Some grisly avatar like the slayer or a giant face in the sky?"

-Cyric

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: “One of the highest members of the Mormon hierarchy declares that "A lesbian daughter [and presumably a gay son] could not remain in the church" (Apostle Richard G. Scott, "A Traditional Unit that Comes in Many Different Forms," LA Times, 9 Sep. 1997.)” “The US House of Representatives voted July 19 to approve the Bush administration’s “faith-based” initiative, which funnels billions in federal funds to church-based charities, while giving such groups the legal right to engage in discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or marital status.”

It's already been pointed out that your understanding of the "faith-based" initiative is erroneous. It does not "funnel billions" into church-based charities. It just provides a tax-break incentive for them. Still, how does that give them the "legal right to engage in discrimination". The policies of these charities were established long before the "faith-based" initiative. Also, these are PRIVATE organizations. They do not need a "legal right" to establish whatever rules or by-laws they consider appropriate for their mission.

“Well, true to form, the Baptists (The article is talking about the southern Baptist convention) have managed to outdo themselves again. At their 2000 Convention, they decided that women should no longer be allowed to serve as pastors.” “The Salvation Army hires gay people, but rejects them for the ministry. According to a spokesman for the church group, it opposes granting domestic partnership benefits “whether for homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples” on the grounds that sex outside of marriage is immoral” (The Salvation Army doesn’t support same sex marriage) There’s a lot more if you want it…

First of all, separation of church and state means that the gov't has no authority to dictate policy or doctrine for any religious organization. Baptist, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc. are under no obligation to please the gov't with the doctrinal policies they choose to follow. LIkewise, the Salvation Army is a PRIVATE organization that bases it's policies on religious doctrine. All the examples you list are based on the doctrine of various religions and aren't subject to legal recriminations.

Another point is that NONE of the examples given qualify as BASHING. Disagreeing with (or not supporting) a lifestyle choice is NOT the same as BASHING these groups. It is a difference of opinion and nothing more.

I'm curious about something, Dramnek; as Yorick said, your hatred of ANYTHING remotely religious is almost palpable. You have posted numerous threads that have ranged from mildly insulting to outright libel.

What happened to cause this anger? Why do you attack any religious ideology with such venom? The intenseness of your responses indicates that your anger is very personal and deep-rooted. So I would like to know what caused that.

I have a couple of friends that are "Christians turned atheist". I know their stories and understand where their responses come from. I would like to know the same about you.

Did you have a really bad personal experience, or do you just dislike religion on general principal?

I'm honostly and sincerely curious about this, so don't classify it as another "Ad-Hominem" attack, because it isn't. I just want to know your motivation.

Originally posted by MagiK: good lord are you two still at this? Um Dram, you mentioned "Billions" being funneled into church charities...could you please let me know what line item in the US budget that says "Money for church run charities"? I believe that the "Faith Based initiative was more about tax breaks than in spending money. Despite the liberals view that all money belongs to the government, the truth is, in fact that it is OUR money not the governments and that giving a tax break just means you are allowing an organization to keep ITS money....Not spending government money.

Umm, that does actually funnel billions into their pockets because they no longer have to pay tax, therefore they now have as extra money that they would have paid as tax before), which is also money that the government has lost, and therefore money you won’t benefit from with your public services and defence services etc etc? 0_0