Should religion have a public forum?

[Shaker]

I am learning myself - from you and others.

... though patently not what a logical fallacy is and how to avoid committing them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... though patently not what a logical fallacy is and how to avoid committing them.

watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them. Of course this cheeky Wee chappy is taking the pee and imho knows exactly what he is doing.

[Shaker]

watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them.

Examples?

[bluehillside Retd.]

watch out for a certain Smurf who goes on at length about fallacies and then peppers his own posts with them. Of course this cheeky Wee chappy is taking the pee and imho knows exactly what he is doing.

In which Trollboy who's never correctly identified a logical fallacy by someone else but who relies entirely on an unholy mix of fallacy, dishonesty and abuse for his trolling bizarrely and mistakenly accuses someone else of logical fallacies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Examples?

There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.

[Owlswing]

Shakes,

There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.

Not lying - surely - just trying to divert attention from the fact that he is trolling and is well aware of that fact but hasn't worked out how to get out of it now that other posters have made it clear that he really should find another bridge from under which he can hunt billygoats.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owls,

Not lying - surely - just trying to divert attention from the fact that he is trolling and is well aware of that fact but hasn't worked out how to get put of it now that other posters have made it clear that he really should find another bridge from under which he can hunt billygoats.

Well, I'm not sure that his lying and his addiction to diversionary tactics are necessarily different things but I take the point. While he's fond of accusing others of logical fallacies, when he attempts to demonstrate the charge he just displays his ignorance of what those fallacies actually entail. I might for example use an analogy about football teams, only to have Trollboy reply with something like, "Ha, but Arsenal play in red shirts while Spurs play in white shirts, another category fuck up by..." etc apparently in the odd belief that an analogy must by the same in every respect rather than just in the relevant ones to be in the same category.

Me, I can forgive his ignorance the first few times but when some of us take the trouble to correct him but he continues with the misrepresentations then that seems to me to put him squarely in the category of lying. Which is trolling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

There are none - Trollboy is just lying. Again.

Shaker asked me to provide examples of people who didn't want any public forum for religion.............presumably because he thought It impossible when blow me two people fitting the bill turned up on a poll!,

The moral is ' keep em peeled and examine posts from a smurfian origin.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shaker asked me to provide examples of people who didn't want any public forum for religion.............presumably because he thought It impossible when blow me two people fitting the bill turned up on a poll!,

In which Trollboy is asked by Shakes specifically for examples of me committing logical fallacies and replies with a response to a different question entirely so as to divert attention from the fact that his charge under discussion was not true.

[Owlswing]

In which Trollboy is asked by Shakes specifically for examples of me committing logical fallacies and replies with a response to a different question entirely so as to divert attention from the fact that his charge under discussion was not true.

I was convinced right at the beginning that the two "no public forum" votes were probably from the fundamentalist Christian clique. I have seen no reason whatsoever on the thread to change that opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

I was convinced right at the beginning that the two "no public forum" votes were probably from the fundamentalist Christian clique. I have seen no reason whatsoever on the thread to change that opinion.

What's the reason you have for being convinced?

[Owlswing]

What's the reason you have for being convinced?

Gut feeling - no more than that! However, I would not be surprised if it turned out otherwise.

It is a matter of trying to measure the depth of dislike of religion of the forum's atheists against the overweaning need of the fundamentalist Christians to show that they are a persecuted minority on the Forum.

[Nearly Sane]

So if Vlad says it is his gut feeling that there were such antitheists it is just as valid as your's.

[Sassy]

Sass thanks for the first funny I have come across today that really made me giggle!

"I am a child of God, saved by the power of God through the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
When it comes to the things of God and the bible I am naturally in a better position than you and Floo to decide what the bible is teaching."

I suspect if god and Jesus were really around in the ether somewhere they wouldn't be thrilled to have you in their gang!

Had you known your bible then you would know that there is

King James Bible
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

God welcomes sinners into the family.  People need the LORD God because there are people like you in the world who always want to attack and tear down anything alien to them without good cause.

Guess you will never understand a family with A Father who is God and loves them.

[floo]

There is nothing in the Bible which indicates the god presented there is anything but very nasty. god and love are an oxymoron.

[Sassy]

There is nothing in the Bible which indicates the god presented there is anything but very nasty. god and love are an oxymoron.

Ignorance abounds in your post.

[floo]

Ignorance abounds in your post.

You can never answer a straight question ever, what is loving about your god, you never answer that one do you?

[Owlswing]

So if Vlad says it is his gut feeling that there were such antitheists it is just as valid as your's.

No, because his 'antitheists' do not exist on this forum, they only exist in his imagination; the fundamentalist Christians DO exist. Very very obviously and there are reams and reams of posts to prove it.

[Nearly Sane]

No, because his 'antitheists' do not exist on this forum, they only exist in his imagination; the fundamentalist Christians DO exist. Very very obviously and there are reams and reams of posts to prove it.

bluehillside has stated that he is antitheist. Not perhaps Vlad's caricature of one but stated it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

bluehillside has stated that he is antitheist. Not perhaps Vlad's caricature of one but stated it.

To clarify, what I've said is that I am both an atheist (ie, I see no reason to believe in the existence of gods) and an anti-theist (ie, on balance I think theism does more harm than good) but they're in different categories of belief. You could for example be a theist and an anti-theist - ie. someone who thinks there is a god but who would rather there wasn't.

The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 
To clarify, what I've said is that I am both an atheist (ie, I see no reason to believe in the existence of gods) and an anti-theist (ie, on balance I think theism does more harm than good) but they're in different categories of belief. You could for example be a theist and an anti-theist - ie. someone who thinks there is a god but who would rather there wasn't.

The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.

Irrelevant to Owlswing's gut reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Irrelevant to Owlswing's gut reaction.

No so sure. Owls rejected Trollboy's characterisation of anti-theists - ie, anyone who happens to express an atheist position - I think. That a sub-set of that group also happen to think that theism is a bad idea is a different matter. Not sure I feel strongly either way to be frank, but I just wanted to clarify.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem though is that Owlswing is taking a position that no one would vote for the No Public Forum who actually believes that, and that he thinks it more likely that this is 'fundamentalist' Christians who have decided to mischief make. I don't see we have any reason to decide that.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

The point though is that chummy routinely labels anyone who puts an argument for atheism as an "anti-theist" - a basic category error.

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.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Not sure about no-one, but very few I'd have thought would say "no public forum". As a basic freedom of speech issue secularists at least would protect the rights of the religious to practice their various faiths without hindrance. Whether nonetheless some atheists voted that way or it was one or more agent provocateur is impossible to say, though I tend to discount conspiracy versions as a matter of course.

The problem with the poll by the way is that it doesn't have a "maintain the status quo" option. I'd vote against that - faith schools, bishops in the HoL etc - but I'd vote for the private members' club option - buildings with signs at the front etc.