|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 20, 2018 11:50:42 GMT
Speaking of assumptions: I counted at least six untrue assumptions which Arlon10 made in his OP. Surprising? Not really. I counted zero intelligent challenges to my personal observations. Maybe that's because personal observations are not really "assumptions." Or maybe because your "personal observations" don't match reality, as in at least six cases in the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 11:57:32 GMT
I counted zero intelligent challenges to my personal observations. Maybe that's because personal observations are not really "assumptions." Or maybe because your "personal observations" don't match reality, as in at least six cases in the OP. PKB |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 12:49:12 GMT
With all due respect, Arlon, do you believe that every person has an obligation to conduct a deep personal study into religion(s) to find out whether it benefits her or not? That is a very good question, thank you. I have always said that if a man can sit by a lake all day holding a fishing pole and that keeps food on his table and keeps him out of debt, then he is as "intelligent" as anyone else. There are of course very many different measures of intelligence and that is one I often use. (I actually know several more.) I have no problem with people who avoid various fields of study. It's probably best they do. I think various people do have various aptitudes. Yes, there are people who "lack" belief in a god and I have always acknowledged that, whatever you have been told to the contrary. I have no problem with them. What does bother me are the people who think they understand science or religion and are obviously wrong about both and are always joining debates they shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 12:56:54 GMT
In another thread started for only atheists I made a comment about a criticism of religion I found there. Mz. Carson said that was against her rules for the thread. I don't believe you get to make your own rules for threads, but I am going to follow hers anyway, well this time at least. All that aside an apparent atheist replied to my comment and I am going to reply back, except in this thread which I created for theists. Hairynosedwombat had noted in Rachel's thread that the Church of England publicly came out in favour of invading Vietnam because our government had made the decision and as a Christian country that obeys the rule of law, when the government says something we have an obligation to obey as members of that community. I, Arlon10 , replied that lots of religious people oppose wars. In fact religion is the only opposition to war. On what basis can an atheist oppose war? Tell me. Your problem is with the Church of England, which at one point obviously failed to be very religious. Hairynosedwombat replied ... If a country decides they want to go to war against another what are you going to do exactly? Threaten them with frowns of disapproval? Here's how religion can work, although it doesn't always, fear of something else. Something you don't know, can't see, can't control, and yes even can't predict could oppose you. Did Hebrews slaughter infants? Technically, no they did not, at least not recorded in the Bible. Some magic or other did, excusing the Hebrew people from what might have been their normal duty in those barbaric times to slaughter children. See how that works? Religion can be a source of "circumspection." It gives your frowns of disapproval a lot more kick. Your complaint about the Church of England illustrates that without religion there is no check on the state. Atheism has no enforcement mechanism except the state. When religion fails you get what atheism can do about the state which is nothing. Religion has an alternate enforcement mechanism, albeit a very remote system of rewards and punishments. Being so remote is actually a good thing as this makes the art of persuasion all the more necessary, and the art of coercion all the more uninformed. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Sept 20, 2018 15:14:30 GMT
In another thread started for only atheists I made a comment about a criticism of religion I found there. Mz. Carson said that was against her rules for the thread. I don't believe you get to make your own rules for threads, but I am going to follow hers anyway, well this time at least. All that aside an apparent atheist replied to my comment and I am going to reply back, except in this thread which I created for theists. Hairynosedwombat had noted in Rachel's thread that the Church of England publicly came out in favour of invading Vietnam because our government had made the decision and as a Christian country that obeys the rule of law, when the government says something we have an obligation to obey as members of that community. I, Arlon10 , replied that lots of religious people oppose wars. In fact religion is the only opposition to war. On what basis can an atheist oppose war? Tell me. Your problem is with the Church of England, which at one point obviously failed to be very religious. Hairynosedwombat replied ... If a country decides they want to go to war against another what are you going to do exactly? Threaten them with frowns of disapproval? Here's how religion can work, although it doesn't always, fear of something else. Something you don't know, can't see, can't control, and yes even can't predict could oppose you. Did Hebrews slaughter infants? Technically, no they did not, at least not recorded in the Bible. Some magic or other did, excusing the Hebrew people from what might have been their normal duty in those barbaric times to slaughter children. See how that works? Religion can be a source of "circumspection." It gives your frowns of disapproval a lot more kick. Your complaint about the Church of England illustrates that without religion there is no check on the state. Atheism has no enforcement mechanism except the state. When religion fails you get what atheism can do about the state which is nothing. Religion has an alternate enforcement mechanism, albeit a very remote system of rewards and punishments. Being so remote is actually a good thing as this makes the art of persuasion all the more necessary, and the art of coercion all the more uninformed. Many religious people support the military, not necessarily war, unless it is against godless heathens or Muslim savages. 😇 It isn't an atheist trope to be pro-war. This would ignore the presence of chaplains, religious organizations supporting military personnel, actual churches on bases, churches and synagogues on US aircraft carriers, a certain teenage girl burned at the stake and canonized, Christian military orders of days long gone...😇 And of course, various wars in the Middle East. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 18:28:26 GMT
In another thread started for only atheists I made a comment about a criticism of religion I found there. Mz. Carson said that was against her rules for the thread. I don't believe you get to make your own rules for threads, but I am going to follow hers anyway, well this time at least. All that aside an apparent atheist replied to my comment and I am going to reply back, except in this thread which I created for theists. Hairynosedwombat had noted in Rachel's thread that the Church of England publicly came out in favour of invading Vietnam because our government had made the decision and as a Christian country that obeys the rule of law, when the government says something we have an obligation to obey as members of that community. I, Arlon10 , replied that lots of religious people oppose wars. In fact religion is the only opposition to war. On what basis can an atheist oppose war? Tell me. Your problem is with the Church of England, which at one point obviously failed to be very religious. Hairynosedwombat replied ... If a country decides they want to go to war against another what are you going to do exactly? Threaten them with frowns of disapproval? Here's how religion can work, although it doesn't always, fear of something else. Something you don't know, can't see, can't control, and yes even can't predict could oppose you. Did Hebrews slaughter infants? Technically, no they did not, at least not recorded in the Bible. Some magic or other did, excusing the Hebrew people from what might have been their normal duty in those barbaric times to slaughter children. See how that works? Religion can be a source of "circumspection." It gives your frowns of disapproval a lot more kick. Your complaint about the Church of England illustrates that without religion there is no check on the state. Atheism has no enforcement mechanism except the state. When religion fails you get what atheism can do about the state which is nothing. Religion has an alternate enforcement mechanism, albeit a very remote system of rewards and punishments. Being so remote is actually a good thing as this makes the art of persuasion all the more necessary, and the art of coercion all the more uninformed. Many religious people support the military, not necessarily war, unless it is against godless heathens or Muslim savages. 😇 It isn't an atheist trope to be pro-war. This would ignore the presence of chaplains, religious organizations supporting military personnel, actual churches on bases, churches and synagogues on US aircraft carriers, a certain teenage girl burned at the stake and canonized, Christian military orders of days long gone...😇 And of course, various wars in the Middle East. 👍 Muslims are religious too, because Islam is a religion. I would say that atheism would neither be pro or anti-war. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in God or gods. Of course there are chaplains, chapels, & other religious organizations within the grounds of the military. There are also chaplains, chapels, & religious organizations supporting & within hospitals, hospices, & yes, even prisons, etc. Given those types of environments they are in spiritual leaders & organizations are needed, for people undergoing the severe stress & anxiety, in which they are undergoing for the current situations that they happen to be working or involved in. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 19:40:48 GMT
In another thread started for only atheists I made a comment about a criticism of religion I found there. Mz. Carson said that was against her rules for the thread. I don't believe you get to make your own rules for threads, but I am going to follow hers anyway, well this time at least. All that aside an apparent atheist replied to my comment and I am going to reply back, except in this thread which I created for theists. Hairynosedwombat had noted in Rachel's thread that the Church of England publicly came out in favour of invading Vietnam because our government had made the decision and as a Christian country that obeys the rule of law, when the government says something we have an obligation to obey as members of that community. I, Arlon10 , replied that lots of religious people oppose wars. In fact religion is the only opposition to war. On what basis can an atheist oppose war? Tell me. Your problem is with the Church of England, which at one point obviously failed to be very religious. Hairynosedwombat replied ... If a country decides they want to go to war against another what are you going to do exactly? Threaten them with frowns of disapproval? Here's how religion can work, although it doesn't always, fear of something else. Something you don't know, can't see, can't control, and yes even can't predict could oppose you. Did Hebrews slaughter infants? Technically, no they did not, at least not recorded in the Bible. Some magic or other did, excusing the Hebrew people from what might have been their normal duty in those barbaric times to slaughter children. See how that works? Religion can be a source of "circumspection." It gives your frowns of disapproval a lot more kick. Your complaint about the Church of England illustrates that without religion there is no check on the state. Atheism has no enforcement mechanism except the state. When religion fails you get what atheism can do about the state which is nothing. Religion has an alternate enforcement mechanism, albeit a very remote system of rewards and punishments. Being so remote is actually a good thing as this makes the art of persuasion all the more necessary, and the art of coercion all the more uninformed. Many religious people support the military, not necessarily war, unless it is against godless heathens or Muslim savages. 😇 It isn't an atheist trope to be pro-war. This would ignore the presence of chaplains, religious organizations supporting military personnel, actual churches on bases, churches and synagogues on US aircraft carriers, a certain teenage girl burned at the stake and canonized, Christian military orders of days long gone...😇 And of course, various wars in the Middle East. 👍 I don't blame the military for war, maybe I should, but I don't. They might have been the cause of some wars if I looked more deeply into the matters. I think most wars in the past were caused by overly ambitious political leaders who took advantage of religion or the military or both to further their personal goals. I think one of the main causes of WWII was economic collapse. There were of course other factors (Hint: Hitler). What I see generally and especially lately are plenty of irreligious people not in the military that are capable of starting wars quite without any help from the military. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 20:52:25 GMT
This is not your discussion board Arlon and both religious and atheist persons are confused about God. I never said it was "my" discussion board. I do notice that it is a "Religion, Faith and Spirituality" board though, which is the reason I found an exclusively atheist thread surprising and a bit out of kilter. It is not surprising you don't have your own board. That would be like a book club for people who don't read. I did not say that you need to leave. I feel pity for you not having your own board. I created this thread so that you could have more freedom in yours. You're welcome. Only on Planet Arlon could anyone assume that on a free ' discussion' board that only positive believing posts are welcome or relevant on a "Religion, Faith and Spirituality" board.   Too funny and yet pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 21:17:28 GMT
I never said it was "my" discussion board. I do notice that it is a "Religion, Faith and Spirituality" board though, which is the reason I found an exclusively atheist thread surprising and a bit out of kilter. It is not surprising you don't have your own board. That would be like a book club for people who don't read. I did not say that you need to leave. I feel pity for you not having your own board. I created this thread so that you could have more freedom in yours. You're welcome. Only on Planet Arlon could anyone assume that on a free ' discussion' board that only positive believing posts are welcome or relevant on a "Religion, Faith and Spirituality" board. Too funny and yet pathetic. There is "discussion by atheists" and "discussion exclusively by atheists," which are not the same thing, yet both welcomed by me. There is no "exclusively religious discussion" by my direction or anyone else's. Try to get your facts straight. Let us know when the fog clears. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 20, 2018 21:30:15 GMT
There is "discussion by atheists" and "discussion exclusively by atheists," which are not the same thing, yet both welcomed by me. There is no "exclusively religious discussion" by my direction or anyone else's. Try to get your facts straight. Let us know when the fog clears. If both are welcomed by you, why start this snarky thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 22:18:09 GMT
There is "discussion by atheists" and "discussion exclusively by atheists," which are not the same thing, yet both welcomed by me. There is no "exclusively religious discussion" by my direction or anyone else's. Try to get your facts straight. Let us know when the fog clears. If both are welcomed by you, why start this snarky thread? To show that it can be done. If I can do it, than you can too. Why shouldn't I? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 20, 2018 22:36:46 GMT
If both are welcomed by you, why start this snarky thread? To show that it can be done. If I can do it, than then you can too. Why shouldn't I? But neither of my threads were snarky; both were genuine. Oh, and BTW, you can't spell correctly. ^^^^^^^^^ (Now THAT was snarky.) |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 22:42:37 GMT
To show that it can be done. If I can do it, than then you can too. Why shouldn't I? But neither of my threads were snarky; both were genuine. Oh, and BTW, you can't spell correctly. ^^^^^^^^^ (Now THAT was snarky.) Some days I'm plum worn worn, what's your excuse? Okay, it's "plumb," but you googled it, didn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 20, 2018 22:46:35 GMT
But neither of my threads were snarky; both were genuine. Oh, and BTW, you can't spell correctly. ^^^^^^^^^ (Now THAT was snarky.) Some days I'm plum worn worn, what's your excuse? Okay, it's "plumb," but you googled it, didn't you? No, I'm a retired professional proofreader. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 22:51:51 GMT
Some days I'm plum worn worn, what's your excuse? Okay, it's "plumb," but you googled it, didn't you? No, I'm a retired professional proofreader. That's not really "creative" work, but admirable nevertheless. I've been thinking of hiring one of you. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 20, 2018 23:11:14 GMT
No, I'm a retired professional proofreader. That's not really "creative" work, but admirable nevertheless. I've been thinking of hiring one of you. Please don't, your excessive 'word salad' tendencies will drive the poor proofreader crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 23:22:06 GMT
That's not really "creative" work, but admirable nevertheless. I've been thinking of hiring one of you. Please don't, your excessive 'word salad' tendencies will drive the poor proofreader crazy. Hey, don't let anyone tease you. If they say, "Look who's picking up crumbs," remember I pick up crumbs too. I'm that tidy, yes I am. I'll pick up the crumbs myself if no one else will. I'm equipped. I might miss one or two on a bad day, that's all. You might find this interesting as a proofreader. The college text with the fewest typos was ... ... wait for it ... ... my Criminal Justice textbook. It's mostly for people who are studying to become policemen, but it fit my journalism track as well. It had about one typo per 300 pages, that is of course if I caught them correctly. Other college texts have far more. Part of that is because they change them too often. |
|
