RE: Who said... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/3/2014 10:36:04 PM)

quote:

I think we may have solved the mystery.




[image]local://upfiles/314707/C175E7C9913D4C5F9EFA50869698BFB7.jpg[/image]



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/3/2014 10:53:25 PM)

Flowers are red.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/3/2014 10:56:26 PM)

I fear that your religion, MusicMystery, is yourself.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/3/2014 11:09:03 PM)

Fuck it. I have a headache and I'm going to bed.

Hey DC, goodnight. I still like ya. I hope you enjoy Evita. I'd wish Musicmystery a good night but he'll just come back with a snide, condescending remark. He's like that, I don't know why. Some people just take shit way to seriously. Dogmatism . . . it sucks.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 7:07:00 AM)

quote:

Any chance there might be a bit of--oh, I don't know--arrogant presumption in deciding that total strangers aren't true believers because they approach religion differently than you think they ought to?


After a few hours drunken sleep and with only a mild hangover I have given this further thought and have decided . . . .

No. It is not arrogant presumption to look at the behavior of other people and make judgments about them. They have the same freedom of speech that I do to dispute my judgments if they want without it being considered arrogant presumption on their part. So what purpose does your accusation of arrogant presumption (and the implied notion of hypocrisy) accomplish?

It is a distraction from the real point of contention - people's butthurt over the fact that I reject the notion that religion is primarily a force for good rather than evil and, even worse, reject the existence of their particular god. On these message boards that is primarily Yahweh, the god of the Bible.

Your argument appears to be essentially this:

It is NOT arrogant presumption to believe - in the face of all contrary evidence and common sense - that a supernatural deity exists and to demand that society conform to this belief or even respect it.

It is arrogant presumption to disagree with the above.

That is a false equivalency and I reject it. It is like believing two plus two equals five is not arrogant presumption while pointing out that two plus two is actually four, is.

Do not misread (as I'm certain some around here will) a lack of respect for your belief with a lack a respect for your right to your belief. I am a firm believer in Freedom of Religion within the general principle that one's rights end where another's rights begin (which is why I oppose the Christian fundie attempts to restrict people's rights in the name of their god). I have no problem with you or anyone else practicing your religion so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I will not however, give up my right to criticize your (or anyone else's) beliefs - no matter what you call it.

So where ya seeing Evita?



FieryOpal -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 7:31:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

This business of talking to yourself is starting to remind me of someone. [:D]

K.

Am I on a BenM thread?
(I'll admit I haven't had enough coffee yet this morn.)

I saw a kitty pic, so here's my contribution:

[image]local://upfiles/1774587/964948D86B1649808F03908E708FFEE3.jpg[/image]



Musicmystery -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 7:39:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I fear that your religion, MusicMystery, is yourself.


This should be in a psych texbook under projection.

[8|]

Your obsession with me is just a little creepy. Get out, find a girl. A creepy one, if you prefer.



Musicmystery -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 7:40:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

This business of talking to yourself is starting to remind me of someone. [:D]

K.

Am I on a BenM thread?
(I'll admit I haven't had enough coffee yet this morn.)

I saw a kitty pic, so here's my contribution:

[image]local://upfiles/1774587/964948D86B1649808F03908E708FFEE3.jpg[/image]

I was thinking the same thing re: Bennie narcissistic thread deja vu.



dcnovice -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 8:54:31 AM)

quote:

So where ya seeing Evita?

The opera house at the Kennedy Center. I'm taking my cousin and her wife as a shared birthday celebration. Cumulatively, we're turning 147!

I haven't seen the play since 1981, so I'm thrilled. I think it's my favorite musical play. Wit is probably my favorite non-musical, but I may be biased due to having known the author (from church, actually!) and, more recently, the subject matter (cancer). Shakespeare, of course, is in a different realm altogether. And Madonna's effort at a movie version of Evita is most charitably forgotten.

As for religion, I share your distrust about absolutism and folks' using their faith as a cloak for immoral deeds.

Charles Dickens makes the point well, I think:

"There are some upon this earth of yours," returned the Spirit [of Christmas Present], "who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion, pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin, as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their doings on themselves, not us."

My main disagreement with you is that religion, as real folks practice it in the real world, is more varied and nuanced and far less full of certitude than the cardboard monolith in some of your posts.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:00:33 AM)


quote:


This should be in a psych texbook under projection.

[8|]

Your obsession with me is just a little creepy. Get out, find a girl. A creepy one, if you prefer.


It was you who first addressed me in this thread.



Musicmystery -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:10:09 AM)

The point <----













































------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> You.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:11:42 AM)

The drama is from those who get bent out of shape because somebody on the internet disagreed with them about something. As for me, I was just having fun spending a rare Friday night home getting mildly drunk and playing - like a cat with a mouse - with a few posters, only one of which I have any respect for.

As for the comparison to BM. Bullshit. BM spews metaphysical bullshit disguised as religious debate. I am of the position that god, angels, the devil, etc, etc, is not real - the exact opposite of BM's (and a lot of other people's) religious nonsense.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:24:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The drama is from those who get bent out of shape because somebody on the internet disagreed with them about something. As for me, I was just having fun spending a rare Friday night home getting mildly drunk and playing - like a cat with a mouse - with a few posters, only one of which I have any respect for.

As for the comparison to BM. Bullshit. BM spews metaphysical bullshit disguised as religious debate. I am of the position that god, angels, the devil, etc, etc, is not real - the exact opposite of BM's (and a lot of other people's) religious nonsense.
This is not directed at you Mark...not specifically...but to all posters on the thread.

I have a question...could it not be asked that if a devout belief in God and angels and a devil is dogmatic, then isn't a devout belief in the NON-existence of such creatures (for lack of a better word)...to the point of mocking it as nonsense...equally dogmatic?



BenevolentM -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:48:35 AM)

Here is something Marc2b wrote in Who said... http://www.collarchat.com/m_4737762/tm.htm post 5 that I feel is spot on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Hubris and conceit are the primary ingredients of religion. You can't have a religion without them. Despite all evidence to the contrary, religious believers "know" that there is an invisible magic man living in the sky. They "know" the earth is only six thousand years old. They "know" that the earth and all life was created in only six days. They "know" that their god hates fags. They "know" that their god wants them to behead infidels. It is impossible to be religious without arrogant presumption.


It is also why the religious are called to humility. It is a delicate edge. I know that superhuman females exist despite all the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps they live in a far off land called Atlantis.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:49:07 AM)

quote:

I have a question...could it not be asked that if a devout belief in God and angels and a devil is dogmatic, then isn't a devout belief in the NON-existence of such creatures (for lack of a better word)...to the point of mocking it as nonsense...equally dogmatic?


As a general principle it could be. I've certainly encountered some pretty strident atheists but I'm not certain if stridency counts as dogmatic. In principle the atheist (even an obnoxiously rude one) should be open to contradicting evidence (I know I would be). The religious person is not for faith requires belief even in the face of contradictory evidence.

My problem with religion boils down to this: it asserts as true that which cannot be proven (god, angels, six days to create the earth, Noah's flood, etc.) while at the same time asserting as false that which can be proven (evolution, 4.5 billion year old earth, etc.).

To get back to the original topic, we are told that religion without sacrifice is dangerous. That is true only if you subscribe to a touchy-feely, watered down, feel good religion but history has demonstrated that religions often demand more than your "hubris" and "conceit," they demand your mind, your labor and possibly, your life. They often demand the lives and freedoms of any who fail to worship the "one true god," and in the proper way at that. There can be no greater arrogant presumption that to think you are justified in taking someones else's freedom and/or life because they dare to think differently than you. This is a fact of religion that those who would defend religion must own.



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 9:52:28 AM)

Do you people see what you've done now?!

It's like Beetlejuice. We said his name one too many times and now he's appeared!



Marc2b -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 10:01:35 AM)

quote:

My main disagreement with you is that religion, as real folks practice it in the real world, is more varied and nuanced and far less full of certitude than the cardboard monolith in some of your posts.


I never claimed otherwise, I was merely speaking in generalities. If people were to take time to mention every possible exception you'd have to spend ten times the amount of time to post things on CM (yes, it will always be CM in my mind). As much as I like CM, it is not that much of a priority in my life.

I hope you enjoy the show. I saw a production up in Stratford, Ontario a couple of years ago and they did a fantastic job. They always do a fantastic job. I was up there a couple of months ago watching (amongst other plays) Man of La Mancha and it was fantastic.



Musicmystery -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 10:04:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
My problem with religion boils down to this: it asserts as true that which cannot be proven (god, angels, six days to create the earth, Noah's flood, etc.) while at the same time asserting as false that which can be proven (evolution, 4.5 billion year old earth, etc.).

Seems, then, your "problem" is with the fundamentalist version of one religion (or the branches of Abrahamic religions, just so we don't waste time on semantic tangents), not religion per se.

From a scientific view, asserting religious beliefs as false is equally damning (vs. noting there's no conclusive evidence for them, which is not the same thing), as these are simply not matters of fact, and thus outside the realm of science, which deals in testable hypotheses.

A lot of "scientific" people misunderstand even evolution for this reason. THAT evolution happened is well-established. HOW it happened is an open question, from Darwin's gradual path to the near spontaneous punctuated equilibrium observed in pepper moths and Galápagos finches.

To assert one's thinking as the descendent of Juan Truway is indeed dogmatic, simply by definition:

adjective: dogmatic

* inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

* expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted



BenevolentM -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 10:13:54 AM)

Musicmystery said something interesting in Who said... http://www.collarchat.com/m_4737762/tm.htm post 58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

adjective: dogmatic

* inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

* expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted


I know that superhuman females exist, I also don't feel a need to share them. When you look up at the night sky perhaps one day you will be able to say that Benevolent made it to the Promised Land. Go Benevolent!



FieryOpal -> RE: Who said... (10/4/2014 10:17:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Do you people see what you've done now?!

It's like Beetlejuice. We said his name one too many times and now he's appeared!

OMG, you're right ... The most incontrovertible statement I've heard (read) here thus far. [8D]

Btw, the comparison was not as to parallel ideologies or rational thought processes (or lack thereof in the case of one who shall remain unnamed), but to prolific self-posting. [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875