Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[zoltanspawn]

And really, if you don't want to read this thread...don't read it. Problem solved.

Isn't it enough that this was split off from the farip thread?

Sure, it's a very annoying thread.

I can't help but suspect there's an agenda to censor the discussion--however irritating--by requesting the move.

 

[Alistair]

And really, if you don't want to read this thread...don't read it. Problem solved.

Isn't it enough that this was split off from the farip thread?

Sure, it's a very annoying thread.

I can't help but suspect there's an agenda to censor the discussion--however irritating--by requesting the move.

Wasn't that the correct solution for the farip thread, instead of starting this thread?

Edit: moving a thread to an appropriate forum isn't censorship.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Wasn't that the correct solution for the farip thread, instead of starting this thread?

No, I think people ought to be free to talk about whatever they want, even when it's unproductive and annoying. If people have something to say, then they should be free of unreasonable restrictions to do so. So I guess I should retract my "don't read it if you don't want to" position because people are clearly interested in reading and responding to opinions that provoke them, and they ought to be able to do that.

I am definitely in favor of freedom of discussion.

Just as Johaninsc argued reasonably and passionately that the farip thread should not be moved to fun and games, so should this thread not be moved to religion. I would hope that those who think this thread should be moved will take the time to go and review that conversation.

 

[Kulindahr]

My "claim" has consistently been that the transmission cannot be shown as accurate either because the original source cannot be verified as to its truth or because the transmission itself is unreliable or both. To try to make things simpler for you, I'm not pursuing the second point about the reliability of the transmission. I don't need to do that because you never face up to the first point, that one doesn't know whether the source material is truthful or not. If the news is fake, how it's transmitted is irrelevant.

If you want to pursue that, then we know little to nothing about any history before the printing press, because you can always say "I don't think the source is reliable". My point is that historians have methods for gauging reliability, and by those standards the Gospels are about the most reliable thing we have until the printing press.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Buffet scholarship" because you never question the veracity of the source from which your oral and written reportage springs. Contradicting your faith-based notions isn't lying and labeling it as such is yet more overly defensive deflection on your part.

You retreat again to the same lie. Repeating your lie is not an argument that you're not lying.

Though in this post you do a double lie. Since you continually pretend not to know what they are, I've put them in red.

 

[Kulindahr]

Historically, many people have died for things they made up. Mayan human sacrifice and so on. If I remember correctly, the risen Christ only appeared to select folk. If they were mistaken or lied, later followers, applying your faith-seeking disposition, would accept what they were told. Ditto with other events. You see it in Scientologists accepting the "wisdom" and white washed biography of Hubbard's life. The point is not that the original reports are false. It's that one doesn't know for certain that they aren't.

I'm not aware that any Mayan priests who invented the religion volunteered to be sacrifices, which is what your claim here would require.

To believe that hundreds of people with independent reports all lied is conspiracy-theory thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Evangelical role in American politics speaks for itself. Catholic organizations in the States repeatedly organize against gay marriage, abortion, contraception and other political issues they object to. In many countries in the world, religion is intricately mixed in with the political structure, e.g. the Church of England is the politically established church in the UK. In Italy, the Church repeatedly intervenes on political issues. Ditto in many African states. The religious establishment in India and Pakistan define those states. Ever heard of Israel? Or the Sunni-Shia schism and its political manifestations? Worldwide religion and politics are inextricably mixed. So back at you. Do you ever bother to check any of your own "information"?

The 'evangelicals' who push political involvement may not even be a majority of 'evangelicals'; they certainly aren't a majority of Christians, even in the United States.

As I said, yes, many Christians act against the beliefs of their churches and get involved in politics. But aberrant behavior is not a good standard for judging things -- if it were, we'd have to throw out geography because there are people who think the earth is flat.

And yes, I checked on what the dozen largest groups of Christians in the world believe about church and state, and those who believe in their separation are a serious majority.

BTW, changing the subject again is still fallacious. Your assertion was about Christians, and now you drag in Islam? Don't become a Rush Limbaugh!

 

[Kulindahr]

Once again, that's a completely subjective and human-centered. Objectively, even relying on your texts, you don't know one way or the other with any degree of certainty. Much in nature and existence defies human knowledge and reason. Science accepts that many aspects of the universe are, as yet, unknown and maybe unknowable.



Many Christians and non-Christians have faith that in a God, who, in certain aspects at least, is ultimately unknowable or concealed. The various mystical traditions are a testimony to that.

You appear wedded only to your own conceptions and, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, in your case the marriage is not a success.

No, I stick to the point, as opposed to your continual wandering all over the place. I've out in brown the protions of your post above that have nothing to do with what they supposedly respond to.

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread should be moved to the religion forum, since very little of the original intent is taking place. It just shows how the thread wasn't needed in the first place. It's obvious one poster was just looking for a place to argue with, and bait other members.

If that's so, then the FARIP thread belongs in Fun and Games, because it's only point is the enjoyment of a handful of people who don't want any discussion happening. Hot Topics says it's for discussion, not for games. So you just made a solid argument that the thread belongs in Fun and Games -- that's where threads made for personal entertainment belong.

- - - Updated - - -

^

Agreed.

This thread has nothing to do with the real-life stuff of Hot Topics. It should be sent to the believer's-only, no-flame-zone, sandbox, of the Religious forum where it belongs.

Another argument for putting the FARIP thread in Fun and Games.

 

[Kulindahr]

It just shows how the thread wasn't needed in the first place. It's obvious one poster was just looking for a place to argue with, and bait other members.

The baiting is by people who set out to insult religion and refuse to allow and discussion. All I'm interested in is people sticking to rational thinking and accuracy. And if you want your thread in Hot Topics, that's legitimate, because the forum says it's for discussion. Leaving it where it is shows hypocrisy on the part of those posting in it and the mods.

 

[Alistair]

The baiting is by people who set out to insult religion and refuse to allow and discussion. All I'm interested in is people sticking to rational thinking and accuracy. And if you want your thread in Hot Topics, that's legitimate, because the forum says it's for discussion. Leaving it where it is shows hypocrisy on the part of those posting in it and the mods.

This thread was created for the discussion of the farip thread. All I see is mostly discussion of religion in general. Your responses to me didn't address that issue.

 

[Kulindahr]

And really, if you don't want to read this thread...don't read it. Problem solved.

Isn't it enough that this was split off from the farip thread?

Sure, it's a very annoying thread.

I can't help but suspect there's an agenda to censor the discussion--however irritating--by requesting the move.

Censoring discussion is why this thread exists in the first place -- people want to have a fun and games thread in Hot Topics.

 

[Alistair]

There's a religion forum for the discussion of religion. There's no censorship in asking that a thread remain on topic.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I think people ought to be free to talk about whatever they want, even when it's unproductive and annoying. If people have something to say, then they should be free of unreasonable restrictions to do so. So I guess I should retract my "don't read it if you don't want to" position because people are clearly interested in reading and responding to opinions that provoke them, and they ought to be able to do that.

I am definitely in favor of freedom of discussion.

Just as Johaninsc argued reasonably and passionately that the farip thread should not be moved to fun and games, so should this thread not be moved to religion. I would hope that those who think this thread should be moved will take the time to go and review that conversation.

The irony is that people are now making arguments which if pursued, would mean the FARIP thread ought to be moved to Fun and Games. They've demonstrated effectively that that's where it belongs -- and rightly so, since it refuses to conform to the Hot Topics statement that the threads are for DISCUSSION.

 

[Kulindahr]

This thread was created for the discussion of the farip thread. All I see is mostly discussion of religion in general. Your responses to me didn't address that issue.

Then pay better attention -- all the discussion here began with posts from the FARIP thread.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a religion forum for the discussion of religion. There's no censorship in asking that a thread remain on topic.

And there's a Fun and Games forum for threads that exclude discussion and are just for the entertainment of those posting in it. You can't have it both ways.

But this thread has in fact remained on topic -- just trace the discussions backwards.

 

[Alistair]

Then pay better attention -- all the discussion here began with posts from the FARIP thread.

You really know that's full of shit. You want accuracy and rational thinking but don't deliver it yourself.

 

[Kulindahr]

You really know that's full of shit. You want accuracy and rational thinking but don't deliver it yourself.

LOL

I insist on accuracy and you object to it: my post was telling you to be accurate. Just trace the posts back -- it's all FARIP discussion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

There's a religion forum for the discussion of religion. There's no censorship in asking that a thread remain on topic.

Have you reviewed Johaninsc's posts defending the right of the farip thread to remain in Hot Topics?

 

[Alistair]

Have you reviewed Johaninsc's posts defending the right of the farip thread to remain in Hot Topics?

I haven't said it shouldn't be in HT. I haven't said this thread shouldnt be HT. IF it was discussion about the farip thread. It no longer is. Kulindahr can say the discussion is about the picture thread all he wants but it no longer is. It's just degraded into arguing things that they don't even know what the origin was.