Spearthrower wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
No I didnt know that. It it true? Billions of people who dont want religion being forced into it by ....by whom?
Atheism has been an available menu option for 50,000 years.

Have you never heard of the words 'blasphemy', 'heretic', 'apostate' Lion? What do you think they mean? Do you think, historically, that there have been any punishments connected with these charges?

Please don't ignore responses to carry on making ridiculous a-factual assertions.

Lion IRC wrote:Once a person in a thread goes on record as saying things like ...talking to Lion IRC is an EFF'ing waste of time, he doesnt know WTF hes talking about, his arguments are stupid, his intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency is so palpable, hes just trolling, etc etc etc, I make a point of not bothering to read their posts.

Skutter wrote:I would like to comment on these two points:-

The Plc wrote:
I just gave you a description of a sample of the all ways religion is imposed and forced upon people all the world today. You did quote it, but didn't address it, even though you quoted it.

and:-

The Plc wrote:
Lion never responded to any of this, or anybody's post on the topic, but continued to post in the thread about a different issue. Is it not reasonable then to assume that he had no answer to it? That he had no justification for his original assertion? That he knows himself that he was wrong? If otherwise, why didn't he post a serious rebuttal? This is why I think he can't genuinely believe what he writes, as his intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency is so palpable. He shouldn't assert the truth of something he's failed to demonstrate when given ample opportunity.

I genuinely don't understand the rest of Lion's post and the point he's trying to make about people being pushed off cliffs because the language and grammar seems so odd to me. I find it too difficult to parse.

I've noticed the same mode of behaviour also.

My first introduction to on-line religious debating, was on a massive thread in the Australian broadband forum called whirlpool. The thread was always referred to as the "what god?" thread and went on for ages. Unfortunately, whirlpool no longer allow religious debates. I suspect they caused too much work for the mods. There's no point linking to it, because it's in the "In the News" section and you can only access it after being a member for a while. Any Aussies here remember or participate in it?

What I noticed from that debate, is that when the supernaturalist doesn't have a comeback (or they are proven to be dead flat wrong), is that they will invariably obfuscate. They will say anything to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. That observation has been proven correct time and time again on RDF and here.

I suspect it's because they realise they have nothing, so the only defence is to make it appear that there's "doubt and debate" on the rationalist side. All the while using the fruits of the scientific method to post their pathetic arguments.
Sad really.

Skutter wrote:What I noticed from that debate, is that when the supernaturalist doesn't have a comeback (or they are proven to be dead flat wrong), is that they will invariably obfuscate. They will say anything to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. That observation has been proven correct time and time again on RDF and here.

Lion IRC wrote:Dont feel bad. Even if I hadnt ignored your rudeness and offered you an answer in my bestest mostest politest grammar, you probably would have found it "too difficult to parse." Oh well.

Paul G wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
...talking to Lion IRC is an EFF'ing waste of time, he doesnt know WTF hes talking about, his arguments are stupid, his intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency is so palpable, hes just trolling, etc etc etc


See, you can get some things right!

Lion IRC wrote:

The Plc wrote:In the very recent Handmaid's Tale thread in which Lion was the core participant, this issue - Lion's bare assertion that religion isn't imposed on people - was discussed. This assertion of Lion's was opposed by myself and others, and Lion completely failed to respond.

Thats almost exactly what I felt about the failure of several ppl - you included - to respond to my points. Unlike most people in that thread - you included - I actually gave references and examples from the book including chapter numbers and page numbers. Your anti-catholic church agenda derails were off topic.

While you might not recognise the version of Christianity in this book, there are plenty of places around the world at this very moment practicing forms of Christianity you wouldn't recognise, so that's hardly relevant.

Lion seems to be arguing that HT is parodying (if that is the proper word) Xian theology/practice that is not true to "authentic" Xianity. So what is this authentic Xianity and where might we find some? As ST points out, Xian theology and practice is quite diverse, with every sect claiming "authenticity." So how do we determine who's correct? Jesus/God is strangely silent on this topic, the Bible is notoriously ambiguous and has been interpreted every which way, so what other recourse do we have?

Lion can argue until he's blue in the face that the Republic of Giliead is nothing like the particular version of Christianity he keeps in his own head, but the fact remains that it is NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM

I will say it again: There are numerous Christian groups around the world today who practice a version of Christianity you would not recognise, accept or even conceive of as being Christian. Likewise, they'd feel the same about your set of beliefs and practices - one example is the celebration of the Black Nazarene currently being celebrated by approximately 80 million filippinos. Further, there are plenty of documented Christian groups in existence today that build theocratic sects enforcing things that the majority of modern humans would reject, such as polygyny and hebephilia.

It may not be a version of christianity that Lion thinks is valid, but that doesn't mean that scriptural support for most of what goes on in the novel - as people tend to do in real life. Besides, in real life there are plenty of christians who don't think that Lion's particular flavor of christianity is a valid one.

The *cough* "argument" being presented by Lion IRC frequently implies that because the regime's flavour of christianity differs from his version of christianity, the regime's version is not actually christianity at all. No True Scotsman and all that. The regime is, apparently, 'distorting' religion's "intended purpose", of which Lion IRC is thus far unable or unwilling to provide a citation. Is the "intended purpose" of hinduism the same as the "intended purpose" of presbyterianism? We could readily check by comparing the clear statements of intent in their respective scriptures (which will presumably be identical, along with the mission statements of all religions) - if only Lion IRC will provide the relevant passages. Alas, without that evidence his 'argument' looks worryingly like bullshit.

The reason why no one will address Lion's points about the 'ungodly' aspects of the Republican of Gilead because the fallacy of equivocation he employs here has been recognised and discussed right from the beginning, with no adequate and convincing response. It's almost pointless to point out the 'No-True Scotsman' form of argument Lion continues to use, as it has already been done so, repeatedly, but still Lion shows no evidence of comprehending, understanding and realising it.

Anyway, instead of regurgitating your "no true Scotsman" defence once more (which is what you've just done), you might as well save your breath; whether or not the theocracy of Gilead is truly Christian as you define it,

Lion's desperate A is Not-A arguments not only fly in the face of reality ...

How about responding to the gauntlet slapped liberally around your face numerous times in this thread regarding the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity, all of which you claim to recognise, but yet fail to appreciate the logical ramifications of as you blithely reassert the no true scotsman fallacy?

There's absolutely no need to refer to chapter and page - we're not talking about specific details in the book, as much as you'd LOVE to muddy the waters

Is he trolling, being obtuse or can he just not read English? The (not so immaculate) assumption underlying his argument has been cut away at by several posters at several times - the assumption that we can determine if Gilead is Christian or not by looking at the text and seeing if it meets Lion's personal and vague standard of what Christianity is - but he continues to ignore it, and then tries to claim victory after making the same arguments.

Do we need to keep following you down the rabbit hole and dragging you out by the scruff of your neck repeatedly?

Do we really need to keep pointing out to you the 30,000+ denominations of Christianity that don't practice the same version of it as you, even while they use the Bible too - the one you said prescribed what Christianity it.

Do we need to keep walking you through this simple logic that you keep ignoring while transparently attempting to drag the conversation off onto other matters - a mendacious device well known by people who can follow an argument.

Do we really need to keep having our intelligence insulted by your pathetic escapades that revolve solely around hubris not permitting you to admit you are fucking wrong?

jamest wrote:With all due respect John, you shouldn't involve yourself in philosophical threads about God. I mean, your own perspective is grounded entirely in beliefs about a bloke named Jesus, enough said.

I've got enough on my plate here explaining why observation/experience of X does not = X itself, which utterly undermines the metaphysical value of science itself in terms of supporting materialism/physicalism (Utterly!!!), so the last thing I need is Xians entering the fray. I mean, you're intelligent enough to know that your views are devoid of philosophical value due to their base beliefs. Unfortunately, the numpty atheists here have still not grasped that this also applies to them.

Science works, I'll grant you that, because the observational/experienced world is ordered. Though the fact that the observed/experienced world is ordered and science works does NOT imply that the world exists independently of 'that' which observes/experiences it. This BASIC bit of philosophy has eluded these 'sharp brains' for over a decade now (wrt my participation). I'm dumbfounded, I must confess, to the point of now thinking that they are extremists themselves, unto their own cause. Terrorists of a certain ilk, thankfully not violent (yet).

Well, fuck that. My diminished activity over the last few years is due entirely to realising that most people here are impervious to reason if it offends their beliefs/attitudes, as though changing said beliefs was not even an option. It's taken me a long time to realise just how dumb scientists are wrt them deliberately using their knowledge to undermine theism [in general], since any fucking half-wit making half a fucking effort can KNOW that scientific evidence does not support atheism, as its data is not metaphysical. Yet, it's all heads in the sands, until death, for reasons I cannot comprehend other than (perhaps) to absolve them of guilt for their materialistic attitudes.

The people who die here, with their heads in the sand, will have no excuses. They were informed. They are the new Pharisees. Jesus badgered the Pharisees of his time, and I know who he was, so I thereofore must persist until they string me up. That is my cross.

james wrote:
It has taken me a long time to realise just how dumb scientists are wrt them deliberately using their knowledge
to undermine theism [ in general ] since any fucking half wit making half a fucking effort can KNOW that scientific
evidence does not support atheism

jamest wrote:The point was that no cnut here has the acumen to [metaphysically] convert any cnut, though I do. This thread needs reviving to make that point.

jamest wrote:The point was that no cnut here has the acumen to [metaphysically] convert any cnut, though I do. This thread needs reviving to make that point.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:The point was that no cnut here has the acumen to [metaphysically] convert any cnut, though I do. This thread needs reviving to make that point.

That isn't a point, it's a declaration. And one completely without any evidence, I might add.

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:The point was that no cnut here has the acumen to [metaphysically] convert any cnut, though I do. This thread needs reviving to make that point.

That isn't a point, it's a declaration. And one completely without any evidence, I might add.

I'm thinking that's the whole point of going about reasoning metaphysiclly, you don't need any evidence. And it seems the less evidence you rely on, the better and more ideal your reasoning is.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

John Platko wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

jamest wrote:The point was that no cnut here has the acumen to [metaphysically] convert any cnut, though I do. This thread needs reviving to make that point.

That isn't a point, it's a declaration. And one completely without any evidence, I might add.

I'm thinking that's the whole point of going about reasoning metaphysiclly, you don't need any evidence. And it seems the less evidence you rely on, the better and more ideal your reasoning is.

I was referring to evidence of acumen, not metaphysics. But if you're saying that metaphysics is indistinguishable from creative writing, I won't work too hard to dissuade you.