ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Which religious beliefs still influence you? (5/20/2010 11:04:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It seems to me, that when I clarify what you are saying, you see that it will negatively affect your position, so you get irate, and deflect, rather than engage.... What I do is parse their "logic" to the core of the argument, in which case the weakness of the argument starts to become apparent. But again, that is not what you do. Most people who are familiar with your posting history have noticed this many times, and often commented on it. What you do is re-word people's positions in order to change the terms of the debate. You claim you're just trying to clarify the discussion, find common ground, etc, and what you're doing is stripping out whole portions of their argument and hoping they'll agree with your re-definition so that you can reframe the debate on your terms, instead of theirs. This thread was a classic example. I gave a complex answer, you stripped out half of it and tried to condense it down to one word in the hopes that I wouldn't notice. You do this constantly, and it's why a lot of people who used to enjoy a good give-and-take with you have just gotten so sick of your gameplaying they don't even bother wasting the keystrokes anymore. You're not interested in having a sincere, good-faith discussion - you're only interested in counting coup and scoring points, and you don't care how you do it. As long as the blasphemer is well and truly smited. quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You wish to separate out from any religion anything which you wish to define as a "universal moral principle". In other words, if a belief is not exclusively and uniquely a part of a single religion, you are defining it as "not religious". As I have said, this is an uncommon and falsely exclusive definition of a "religious belief". In effect, you are saying something such as the Christian "Golden Rule" isn't part of the Christian creed of beliefs. You are saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill" has not connection with Christianity. Again, you are completely misrepresenting what I said, and once again I'm left to wonder if it's because you're dishonest or if you're genuinely not bright enough to comprehend what people are saying. Being the charitable sort that I am, I refuse to believe you're really that dumb. quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And my interpretation of what she said was that we were on the same side of the discussion. She can, of course clarify if she wishes. I've been known to be wrong, or not fully grasp the significance of every comment. And here's where the intellectual honesty comes into play yet again. Her definition - quote:
If spirituality, religion, or faith has inspired the belief, it's a religious belief. If secular logic has inspired the belief, it's not. is very similar to what mine - quote:
essentially unique (or at least original) to a particular religion was before you repeatedly tried to reword it, and completely contradicts the definition you tried to establish - quote:
3 values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader. So here you are literally arguing both sides of the same issue in the same thread, depending upon who you're talking to. And it's a pity, because you're a fairly intelligent guy, and could contribute a lot to these discussions if you chose to do so instead of using them to settle personal vendettas and lash out at people who make you feel threatened in your beliefs.
|
|
|
|