Debate discussion: Gramarye and Inferno's debate.

[Inferno]

I understand it that this "debate" is now over.
He_who_is_nobody: I don't want the other debate to be closed yet because
a) I am still in contact with TruthIsLife7 and he assured me that he will get back. This is not the case with Gramarye.
b) TruthIsLife7 and I agreed that we'd have far longer intervals in between posts. This is not the case with Gramarye.
c) I'm actually interested in the other debate, whereas I don't really care about this one any more.

Hytegia, AFAICT the point isn't that all religion is evil and leads to evil. The point is that in the end, most results in evil. In general, it's evil.

This is indeed what I tried to communicate, though I concede that I may have made a poor job of it. It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes.

The problem I have with religion in general is the underlying illogical nature of it (appeal to an invisible, unknowable supernatural being) and the resulting problem of justifiability. (God told me to do X, therefore I do X.) The problem, in short, is what Richard Dawkins calls the "logical pathway" from religion to doing evil, a pathway that does not necessarily exist in many other ways of thinking. (It's also almost exactly the same reason why I oppose nationalism, etc.)

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

The problem, in short, is what Richard Dawkins calls the "logical pathway" from religion to doing evil, a pathway that does not necessarily exist in many other ways of thinking. (It's also almost exactly the same reason why I oppose nationalism, etc.)

This is probably one of the most profound things I have read on this site in a long time. :ugeek:

I just to want to be clear though...... Not all religious individuals or individuals that subscribe to a strong sense of nationalism do evil in accordance with those principles (if it really is a sense of belonging that all humans require then by all means I think our education system should do a better job of trying to describe what is human and what it means to be human...... not religious or nationalistic, or etc.). I think a rational mind needs to be able to tell the difference between the act and the thought. If we ostracize religious people just because they are religious we are no better than they are. If we/they start to limit rights, liberties, and opportunities (something that all members of a society have equal standing on) based on those principles then I think we/they have a major gripe. And just for the record I would say that spreading false rumors for the simple fact of destroying someones credibility is an outright attack on that individuals rights and civil liberties. If it's done between friends knowing that it won't tarnish the individuals standing in a particular region then it's not a major issue (IMHO). But we never really KNOW that do we? So, it's better to be safe than sorry, again my opinion.


Here would be an example of a faulty argument that I see all the time. (I support this from a rights perspective and not because of a personal bias, just for the record I'm not gay). Religious people that claim that gay individuals getting married is a trampling of the religious persons rights need to have their head examined. The gay INDIVIDUAL is just as much of a human being as you...... you religious MORON.

Sorry for the small rant...... Carry on.

P.S. I know I can to a better job at the above as well. It's not something that happens over night, it's something that can be a life long process.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I understand it that this "debate" is now over.
He_who_is_nobody: I don't want the other debate to be closed yet because
a) I am still in contact with TruthIsLife7 and he assured me that he will get back. This is not the case with Gramarye.
b) TruthIsLife7 and I agreed that we'd have far longer intervals in between posts. This is not the case with Gramarye.
c) I'm actually interested in the other debate, whereas I don't really care about this one any more.

I understand that, but as an outside observer, both debates have been on hiatus for a while. One debate was suggested to be closed because of this hiatus yet the other one remains open just seems strange (especially when the debate that has been on hiatus longer is the one staying open).

It would be nice, at the least, to get updates from the moderators on the other debate as to why dotoree is taking so long to respond.

 

[Inferno]

I understand that, but as an outside observer, both debates have been on hiatus for a while. One debate was suggested to be closed because of this hiatus yet the other one remains open just seems strange (especially when the debate that has been on hiatus longer is the one staying open).

It would be nice, at the least, to get updates from the moderators on the other debate as to why dotoree is taking so long to respond.

I have multiple messages from dotoree/TruthIsLife7 in my inbox, detailing exactly why it's taking him. However:
a) I doubt any of you will want to read it.
b) I am not at liberty to reveal private messages if he does not agree.

As stated though, I have his promise that he will return and apparently quite soon at that.

@CommonEnlightenment:
Thanks for the flowers.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

As stated though, I have his promise that he will return and apparently quite soon at that.

Dancing classes are time-consuming, for sure. As much as he's tapping away, though, I'd like to think that he's a professional worthy of a Broadway musical with all the skill he's shown here.
Man has some talent.

 

[Gnug215]

I have multiple messages from dotoree/TruthIsLife7 in my inbox, detailing exactly why it's taking him. However:
a) I doubt any of you will want to read it.

[...]

We really, really don't.