Should religion have a public forum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Not that Nearly Sane makes a whole big case for atheism, in fact I struggle with his arguments as he has a tendency to get to the heart of a argument, he makes you really think, my point is, my only point, Vlad is on record as singling out Sane as most definitely not anti theist, so not anyone.

I get where Vlad is coming from, he is an angry Christian, they are allowed, most of the time I am completely lost as to what he is chuntering on about, but when he shouts anti theist, for me, he is simply being an angry Christian and sometimes he is right.

First, I think you'll find that he pretty consistently mis-labels anyone who posts a atheistic argument as an anti-theist despite having the error explained to him.

Second though, how is anger an appropriate response for anyone over the age of about six? "Anti-theist" is such a vague term in any case - it encompasses those who think theism does more harm than good and is therefore a bad idea at one end to those (much rarer) who would ban it in a heartbeat if they could at the other. I'm an "anti-Tory" for example, but I wouldn't propose banning them.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd pretty much agree with that. I don't think that an anonymous poll gives Vlad the evidence he claims, nor do I think there is any justification for Owlswing's position.


I didn't vote as I think it's badly phrased and unclear.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Sorry mate, I was simply making a small point, most who argue with Vlad seem to understand, me, I am totally lost, I tried to follow the objective moral argument, right over my head, and no, please don't try to make me understand I will get it in my own sweet time

I did once decipher one of his arguments, he was simply saying greed was wrong, why he goes all around the tree's to make that simple point, well it is Vlad, and you old son know him much better than I do

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey Gonners,

Sorry mate, I was simply making a small point, most who argue with Vlad seem to understand, me, I am totally lost, I tried to follow the objective moral argument, right over my head, and no, please don't try to make me understand I will get it in my own sweet time

I think you do him too much credit. At first sight you might think that his (mis)use of long words suggests some content, but in fact there is none. He has no argument even conceptually for objective morality, and nowhere for it to exist even if he did. He confines himself therefore to asserting the model of morality that fits all the observable data to be "disproven" in the hope that no-one notices he hasn't even attempted a disproof. Just to pile on his personal grief, he also seems to want to carve out just one aspect of human experience - morality - from the others that rely just as readily on probabilistic rights and wrongs (law, aesthetics etc) and to claim for some unknown reason that, if it's not objective, then that one alone can't be "real" - a basic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

It really is that vapid. Really.   

I did once decipher one of his arguments, he was simply saying greed was wrong, why he goes all around the tree's to make that simple point, well it is Vlad, and you old son know him much better than I do

A depressing thought. Usually in my experience those who have a cogent position will express it cogently - it's those who never answer questions except with other (generally irrelevant) questions, who vanish in the face of arguments that undo them, who rely on fallacious thinking, who throw abuse at their interlocutors in place of counter-argument etc who more often than not are defending a cupboard that's entirely bare in any case.

[Leonard James]

Hey Gonners,

I think you do him too much credit. At first sight you might think that his (mis)use of long words suggests some content, but in fact there is none. He has no argument even conceptually for objective morality, and nowhere for it to exist even if he did. He confines himself therefore to asserting the model of morality that fits all the observable data to be "disproven" in the hope that no-one notices he hasn't even attempted a disproof. Just to pile on his personal grief, he also seems to want to carve out just one aspect of human experience - morality - from the others that rely just as readily on probabilistic rights and wrongs (law, aesthetics etc) and to claim for some unknown reason that, if it's not objective, then that one alone can't be "real" - a basic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

It really is that vapid. Really.   

A depressing thought. Usually in my experience those who have a cogent position will express it cogently - it's those who never answer questions except with other (generally irrelevant) questions, who vanish in the face of arguments that undo them, who rely on fallacious thinking, who throw abuse at their interlocutors in place of counter-argument etc who more often than not are defending a cupboard that's entirely bare in any case.

He really isn't worth the time you waste on him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len - nice to hear from you again.

He really isn't worth the time you waste on him.

I agree - feeding the house troll is never a good idea. I was just sharing the thought with Gonners is all. How's Spain?

[Leonard James]

Hi Len - nice to hear from you again.

I agree - feeding the house troll is never a good idea. I was just sharing the thought with Gonners is all. How's Spain?

Bleedin' 'ot right now, which is why I am skulking indoors on the puter. (not to be confused with 'puta'). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

Bleedin' 'ot right now, which is why I am skulking indoors on the puter. (not to be confused with 'puta'). 

Quite so - could get awful messy if you did...

Fun fact: puttanesca sauce is so called because it was a quick meal the working girls could prepare before they went out for the night (though I'm sure you knew that) 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leo Jams,

Typical Brit, complaining about the weather

Gonnagle.

[Owlswing]

I'd pretty much agree with that. I don't think that an anonymous poll gives Vlad the evidence he claims, nor do I think there is any justification for Owlswing's position.


I didn't vote as I think it's badly phrased and unclear.

Can you count just how many f***s I give as to whether you agree with muy position or not?

There would be no point in this forum if we all agreed on everything!

"I disagree with/disapprove of (depending who you read) what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

[Leonard James]

Len,

Quite so - could get awful messy if you did...

Fun fact: puttanesca sauce is so called because it was a quick meal the working girls could prepare before they went out for the night (though I'm sure you knew that) 

I confess to complete ignorance of the stuff until this moment.

On another note I admit to having sex with various putas when I was a young man and still trying to be 'normal'.  .