Welcome to Gaia! ::

I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
Maltese_Falcon91
SantaniasGirl
Maltese_Falcon91
The kid who killed his parents over being grounded from Warcraft is still a gamer though, isn't he?

As Mortal Gunpunch has stated, just because that kid played Warcraft doesn't make everyone who plays Warcraft some psychotic killer. You cannot condemn an entire group of people for one bad egg, like I cannot condemn all Atheists for this one crude, poorly researched and written post.

... Where did I condemn a group of people?


I think it was directed at the OP, not you.
I_Write_Ivre
Maltese_Falcon91
SantaniasGirl
Maltese_Falcon91
The kid who killed his parents over being grounded from Warcraft is still a gamer though, isn't he?

As Mortal Gunpunch has stated, just because that kid played Warcraft doesn't make everyone who plays Warcraft some psychotic killer. You cannot condemn an entire group of people for one bad egg, like I cannot condemn all Atheists for this one crude, poorly researched and written post.

... Where did I condemn a group of people?


I think it was directed at the OP, not you.

Well, the way it was worded... Maybe when she gets back on, I'll ask her to clarify that.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

6,050 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Maltese_Falcon91
... Where did I condemn a group of people?


Whoops! ^^" I was directing this more towards the OP than you. Sorry for vagueness.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

6,050 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Oh, and has anyone noticed how CDizzle17 hasn't replied to any of these arguments? I just... thought I'd bring that up.
I_Write_Ivre's avatar

Popular Member

7,750 Points
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Overstocked 200
  • Tipsy 100
SantaniasGirl
Oh, and has anyone noticed how CDizzle17 hasn't replied to any of these arguments? I just... thought I'd bring that up.

I'm not sure if he's a troll and intentionally ignoring the posts, or if he can't take being told he's blatantly wrong, like most newbies here.
Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

I_Write_Ivre
SantaniasGirl
Oh, and has anyone noticed how CDizzle17 hasn't replied to any of these arguments? I just... thought I'd bring that up.

I'm not sure if he's a troll and intentionally ignoring the posts, or if he can't take being told he's blatantly wrong, like most newbies here.
Or he came on to post, left, and is still off blundering through his offline life with the idea that he's going to come back online to heaps of praise for his writing talent and intellectual brilliance.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

6,050 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
I_Write_Ivre
SantaniasGirl
Oh, and has anyone noticed how CDizzle17 hasn't replied to any of these arguments? I just... thought I'd bring that up.

I'm not sure if he's a troll and intentionally ignoring the posts, or if he can't take being told he's blatantly wrong, like most newbies here.


I'm beginning to suspect he can't take being told he's wrong because of the way the original post was written. However, he could be just one amazing troll.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

6,050 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Kita-Ysabell
I_Write_Ivre
SantaniasGirl
Oh, and has anyone noticed how CDizzle17 hasn't replied to any of these arguments? I just... thought I'd bring that up.

I'm not sure if he's a troll and intentionally ignoring the posts, or if he can't take being told he's blatantly wrong, like most newbies here.
Or he came on to post, left, and is still off blundering through his offline life with the idea that he's going to come back online to heaps of praise for his writing talent and intellectual brilliance.


Yeah, that's... probably what he's doing.
Sorry I took so long to reply. You obviously put a lot of thought into this post, so I thought I should do the same.
Kita-Ysabell
One of the most difficult things about Unitarian Universalism is that it is both insanely hard and stupidly easy to explain. Trying to explain it to a life-long Catholic in Guatemala, in Spanish no less? Not gonna happen. Wikipedia entry? One of the less accurate ones, but only because only one of the seven principles was included in the overview.

I've went to www.uua.org, and read as much as I could about Unitarian Universalism. As a life long Athiest (though I don't really like using that term, too much baggage attached to it) in Canada, who speaks English, I think I at least grasp the basics. You would certainly know more about it than me, of course. So again, if I misinterpret something, please let me know.
Kita-Ysabell
The inherent worth and dignity of every person: Well, we start off with that "pious cretin" bit. You might say that I did the same thing, but whereas I phrased it so that an asshat is something that someone (and in fact, anyone) can be, the OP phrased it so that a pious cretin is something that certain people always are. What's more, I intentionally chose a word that, while clearly negative, doesn't have a whole lot of meaning and used contextual clues to define that word to mean exactly what I meant it to.

You didn't do the same thing. Not exactly. As I said before, the OP's use of 'pious cretin' was completely disrespectful. That being said, while calling someone an Asshat is, realistically, the lesser of two evils, I still think name calling in general is disrespectful, and has no place in an intelligent debate.
Kita-Ysabell
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large: So what does this have to do with what's wrong with the OP? This principle is about trust in humanity. It's about being very careful about saying that an idea held by a large group of people is somehow holding them back, and that they should be liberated (forcefully if necessary) from that idea. While the OP's implication that there is a silent majority of "closet non-believers" seems to agree with the ideals of democratic process, the OP says that such non-believers must take leadership roles, not those equal to believers. In effect, the OP advocates reversing, rather than abolishing, the totalitarianism that they claim religion supports.

That's not, strictly speaking true. The OP doesn't claim that religion is totalitarian, but, rather the concept of God is.
CDizzle17
The idea of a God is the embodiment totalitarianism. To say that an entity dictates your every move and intervenes in your life relinquishes reason and free thought.

He says that non-believers must take leadership roles, because Religion is hindering our future. I think he's talking about things like Stem-Cell research (which a lot of religious groups oppose, on ethical grounds) but he doesn't actually list a reason in his post, so that's just speculation on my part.
Kita-Ysabell
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning: Despite the "everyone should believe what they wish" line, the overall message of the OP is that religion should be abolished. That doesn't sound like a very free search for truth and meaning, and as for responsibility, well. Responsibility means holding your theories accountable for their implications. It means going out and exploring the ideas you're trying to refute. It means being rigorous about the internal logic of your arguments. It doesn't mean doing these things flawlessly, but it means not being proud about failing to do them.

Hmm, yes. I can see your point there. By your definition, CDizzle17's post was anything but responsbile. To be honest, as I was picking his post apart, I often wondered if he was perhaps getting Religion confused with certain Conservative branches of Christianity? Either way, you're right. If he did research Religion as a whole, his post certainly did not reflect that.
Kita-Ysabell
I don't expect everyone to hold these principles in equal reverence. See Principle #4. But breaking at least five out of seven in one go is right out. That goes beyond "equal reverence" and into "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks."

I can see that. Of course, I think there's a slight difference between "you, sir, need to reconsider your approach, because this one sucks" and "YOU'RE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE THAT YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MAKING. PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHAT."
Kita-Ysabell
But if I did write such an essay, I would laud you for not thinking it offensive. As you have given the subject of my hypothetical essay, there's nothing offensive about it. It's not about holding the same beliefs, it's about being genuinely respectful in communicating them, which the OP does not do, as I have outlined above.

No, no he doesn't. But at the same time, I'm not sure reacting the way you did was the right way to communicate your point. First, because simply getting mad at the way he said it is self defeating. When he sees that he's getting such a rise out of you, he's going to stop taking you seriously, and he's probably just going to start thinking of you as just another pious cretin. who's rejecting his "truth". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he wouldn't, but judging from what I've seen... well, he doesn't really strike me as the type to react well to a religious person calling him an asshat.

Secondly, you gave up a chance to communicate your ideas and beliefs respectfully, or simply point out the (numerous) flaws in his argument. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Who knows? It might have made him go back, and put a lot more thought into how he percieves the world.
Kita-Ysabell
Religion(n. as defined by the OP): the polar opposite of science, a belief in an ultimate truth, a mythology, monotheism, totalitarianism, cowardice, mind control, something divorced from belief, a hindrance to our future, a lie, the polar opposite of reason

You forgot, delsusion, force of pain and destruction and full idiotic idiotic assertions. But yeah. He doesn't have a very accurate idea of what Religion actually is or encompasses.
Kita-Ysabell
Maltese_Falcon91
Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.
Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.
I'm getting it from Bertrand Russell and his discussion of the importance of philosophy. Although even his definition of science is... lacking. Science is a model. Religion is a point from which we hang a pendulum and say, "from this, all." Science may refute a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it can never refute a metaphoric one. Religion is not mythology, though it may be involved in one. So on and so forth.

If everyone considered the stories in the bible to be purely metaphorical, then yes, religion (well... Christianity at least) and science would never clash. The only problem is, certain faiths do. Moral Gutpunch said that a gamer who kills his parents because he was grounded from Warcraft can't represent gamers as a whole, well isn't the reverse true? Can religions who don't take the bible literally, represent religion has a whole?
Resonare Praeteriti's avatar

Beloved Sex Symbol

Moral Gutpunch
Resonare Praeteriti

Ah, and two words that kill the argument, as it stands, right out: eclectic paganism. The self serve buffet of religions, in which one picks and chooses what they like from other religions to create their own. I think it might be the ultimate Achilles heel to this sort of piece, as eclectics don't have to merely scavenge from other religions, they can input things they've thought of themselves.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with this so long as you do your research. Hell, I do it.

Religion is about finding out what's important in life and how to view everything about it. I feel it's kind of stupid to go 'This is my religion, but I don't actually think this way.' Isn't that like being a vegetarian when you trust in the evolutionary importance of eating meat?

Right you are, I did it myself as well. Then I found out that what I created almost exactly fit Laveyian Satanism, and I felt a bit disappointed in one sense. I had thought I was on to something revolutionary after all those years of careful planning and piecing together, haha.

Though in terms of the OP, eclectics pose an issue because they have a valid religion, even if the follower count is one. So the argument shoots itself in the foot by not narrowing it's spectrum down to a specific group or groups, as there could be literally tens of thousands of religions that defeat their claim when eclectics are taken into account.
Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

Maltese_Falcon91
And now we've come to the point in the discussion where I talk about rhetorical strategy and reveal my ambivalence about my first post.

See, I didn't respond in my first post using best debate practices, and I did so knowingly. It was, and is, intended as much as a slap on the wrist as a valid response. Using capslock? A hyperbolic caricature of internet rage. The "asshat" insult? A mirror of the OP's offhand "pious cretin" meant to induce reflection. Did I actually use it that way when I posted? Yes. Is my point clear? Maybe. Is the post perfect? Hells no. Was I being an asshat making it? Possibly. Do I regret it? No.

All of your critiques of that post are totally valid, as critiques of a post in a reasonable debate. But, as I implied in my reply, I went into this thread with the view that this was (at the time of my first post) a thread in which logic was dead, and this was a large part of the point of my first post. So treating it as a post in a reasonable debate would be counter to my rhetorical strategy.

However, I do understand the pointlessness of writing a response that is all just vitriol and no reason and that isn't going to get read. Hence the (relatively) short post, the wild tone shifts, and the use of as many logical appeals as I could get my hands on. Abrasive techniques are difficult to use and might lead down a dangerous path, but just because something has drawbacks doesn't mean its benefits can't outweigh those drawbacks.

I want to make it clear that I am trying very hard not to go all revisionist on my first post, or to defend it using the wrong reasons, or to completely disown it when I don't really mean to. Those are all shitty tactics. I am trying to deal responsibly with what I said. Thank you for holding me to that.

In a way, this has all been an experiment in rhetoric and social interaction. I made my post from an imperfect model of debate. I do hope to refine that model. The only problem is, in this case, I really don't know what the outcome has been, or whether it has yet to be something. So, while I know that the model I made it from, and the model I have, is imperfect, I do not know how imperfect, or in what way it is imperfect, so I cannot conceive of a model that is less imperfect.

By the way, the above paragraph is pretty much the same method I use to clean my room. And it works. Partially because I get better feedback, but still.
Kita-Ysabell
I want to make it clear that I am trying very hard not to go all revisionist on my first post, or to defend it using the wrong reasons, or to completely disown it when I don't really mean to. Those are all shitty tactics. I am trying to deal responsibly with what I said. Thank you for holding me to that.

Trying? Nah, I'd say you succeeded.
Kita-Ysabell
In a way, this has all been an experiment in rhetoric and social interaction. I made my post from an imperfect model of debate. I do hope to refine that model. The only problem is, in this case, I really don't know what the outcome has been, or whether it has yet to be something. So, while I know that the model I made it from, and the model I have, is imperfect, I do not know how imperfect, or in what way it is imperfect, so I cannot conceive of a model that is less imperfect.

Well, as far as the outcome is? Unless CDizzle17 decides to come back and start posting rebuttals (which I sort of doubt) well... this is the outcome. We pointed out how nothing he said made any sense, then argued about debate tactics for a bit. Which is actually pretty good, because topics like these tend to... get out of hand.

I remember a few years ago on this old Archspace forum, there was a guy who posted this topic called "Proof that god doesn't exist" and it was just a link to some spam site. At first we all thought it was funny and clever, but then some guys actually started talking about religion... I don't remember how long it lasted, but by the time that tread got locked, everyone walked away with hurt feelings.

Seeing as everything stayed (mostly) civil and respectful, I'd say the outcome was pretty good.
SantaniasGirl's avatar

6,050 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Grunny Grabber 50
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Maltese_Falcon91
Well, as far as the outcome is? Unless CDizzle17 decides to come back and start posting rebuttals (which I sort of doubt) well... this is the outcome. We pointed out how nothing he said made any sense, then argued about debate tactics for a bit. Which is actually pretty good, because topics like these tend to... get out of hand.

I remember a few years ago on this old Archspace forum, there was a guy who posted this topic called "Proof that god doesn't exist" and it was just a link to some spam site. At first we all thought it was funny and clever, but then some guys actually started talking about religion... I don't remember how long it lasted, but by the time that tread got locked, everyone walked away with hurt feelings.

Seeing as everything stayed (mostly) civil and respectful, I'd say the outcome was pretty good.


The outcome was "pretty good"? I'd say it's f***ing fantastic. Not only did we successfully dismantle this guy's argument, we managed to avoid stepping on people's toes and almost no name-calling was in this post. I'd say this victory gets a 9/10 from me. (:

Oh, and yeah, CDizzle17 isn't coming back. I'm subscribed for when he does. I'd love to talk to him personally, just to see if he can counterattack with any good, clean comebacks. Odds are he won't, but still...
The Catfish Blues's avatar

Dangerous Lunatic

5,600 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Tycoon 200
Dear mods, stop moving any old religious s**t into M&R, we have standards.
Dear M&R mods, please tell other mods they can't just move any old s**t here.

Sincerely
Tcb
Kita-Ysabell's avatar

Distinct Conversationalist

Maltese_Falcon91

Kita-Ysabell
Maltese_Falcon91
Kita-Ysabell
Science neither opposes nor replaces religion.
Where are you getting this idea that science never opposes religion from? It happens all the time, and is a reality that both atheists and theists have to come to terms with.
I'm getting it from Bertrand Russell and his discussion of the importance of philosophy. Although even his definition of science is... lacking. Science is a model. Religion is a point from which we hang a pendulum and say, "from this, all." Science may refute a literal interpretation of the Bible, but it can never refute a metaphoric one. Religion is not mythology, though it may be involved in one. So on and so forth.

If everyone considered the stories in the bible to be purely metaphorical, then yes, religion (well... Christianity at least) and science would never clash. The only problem is, certain faiths do. Moral Gutpunch said that a gamer who kills his parents because he was grounded from Warcraft can't represent gamers as a whole, well isn't the reverse true? Can religions who don't take the bible literally, represent religion has a whole?
I haven't been engaging in the debate that sprang up from this, because it would take more time and effort than I can really afford at the moment. Props to those who have engaged in that discussion, because it seems to be going along nicely. It's kind of the ultimate irony/Poetic justice that the OP gave rise to such a discussion.

But, I did touch upon the issue, so in the interest of responsibility, here's my two cents. A warning: s**t's about to get philosophical.

What it boils down to is that there's a right way and a wrong way to have an idea. Having an idea is like holding a butterfly: cling too tightly and you'll crush it.

Or, to put it in less flowery terms, the right way to have an idea is a Frankenstein's monster of Death Note and Jaques Lacan: only the concrete world exists with 100% certainty, so any understanding of the world must exist with less than 100% certainty, and therefore conflicting ideas within an individual can, and to some degree, must be held with different degrees of certainty, adding up to less than 100%.

What is real is real, our ideas about it are not real, and we should not mistake what is not real for what is real.

Religion and science are both about ideas. Having scientific ideas in the wrong way becomes scientism. Having religious ideas in the wrong way becomes fanaticism. Doing either results in the idea turning back on itself and negating itself. Scientism negates the importance of the scientific process, which is what defines science. Fanaticism... well, religion is actually a whole lot harder to define than science, so this sentence really belongs in its own essay. An essay that I'm not going to write.

But the long and the short of it is: science and religion, when treated in such a way that they do not negate themselves, cannot negate each other, because neither is the real world. They're a bit like two different shelves of books. No matter how you place a book on one shelf, it cannot make it impossible to place a book in a similar place on the other shelf.

That isn't to say that they can't inform one another. Take, for example the statements "God created the world" and "the universe was created by the Big Bang." People go on and on about how they're contradictory. But a resolution exists in the statement "God is the Big Bang." Which... I dunno where you'd file that book. Maybe on the religion shelf, or maybe on a third shelf. The main point is that neither shelf is the ceiling lamp. And that at this point, the metaphor has worn out its welcome and just gotten weird.

From this perspective, the OP's biggest logical error is that it compares scientism and fanaticism and says that scientism is right when both options were wrong in the first place.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games