'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Grahame]

Just to confirm that I'm not saying that religion is the only thing in society that causes inequality. I'm saying that it's the bedrock that enables and gives justification for these inequalities to exist.

 

 

Christianity tells me to seek after that which is good and to shun evil.

 

You aren't telling me you disagree with that are you?

 

 

[six45ive]

For those interested in the metaphysical/transendental argument for god (TAG) here's a debate from the Atheist Experience where Matt Dillahunty debates the creationist Matt Slick (very appropriate surname ).

 

 

And here's Matt summing up in the next show.

 

 

It rather misses the point when Creationists have a literal interpretation of the bible, does it not?

 

Except the debate is not about a literal interpretation of the bible is it? It's about TAG, or the metaphysical argument for god that you were triumpheting earlier on. So please feel free to rebut any of the points in the debate.

 

Are you unable to respond to my posts on the subject so you resort to YouTube as a diversion from that debate?

 

As far as I'm concerned I've not only addressed every relevent point that you've made but I've clearly rebutted it in my linking to numerous in depth articles that show extensive research on these issues that obviously have more validity than your usual politically rhetorical style multiplied by a few links to some, possibly dubious, wikipedia articles.

 

The videos are a kind of confirmation bias, leading to closed dogmatic thinking.

 

I think the appropriate saying here is; 'keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.'

Of course this is also the main crux of our debates, even in areas where we might have some aggreement.

What you descibe as 'dogmatic thinking' I might describe as 'deterministic thinking'. The idea that not all opinions are equally valid and that there is clear right and wrong in life and there is a clear, logical process that can be learned which allows an individual to develop, what I've previously called, a bulls**t detector so they don't leave themselves open to accepting all sorts of nonsense that may get them into trouble because they can't distinguish fact from fiction.

I've got a good bulls**t detector which is why I'm on here debating you and the 'religiously persecuted' (where's tab1 when you need him) like Grahame.

 

Can you also please explain what you mean by 'dogmatic thinking' and give examples of where you think it's acceptable and where it's not?

[six45ive]

I've just watched this and it gets a bit deep in places but you can see through the logic of the debate that the idea of a metaphysical god is just as stupid as believing in any other god.

 

If you're not used to the philosophically logical arguments then you may need to watch it a few times but when you work through it everything becomes crystal clear.

[Wildcat]

Except the debate is not about a literal interpretation of the bible is it? It's about TAG, or the metaphysical argument for god that you were triumpheting earlier on. So please feel free to rebut any of the points in the debate.

 

As far as I'm concerned I've not only addressed every relevent point that you've made but I've clearly rebutted it in my linking to numerous in depth articles that show extensive research on these issues that obviously have more validity than your usual politically rhetorical style multiplied by a few links to some, possibly dubious, wikipedia articles.

 

Maybe you could point to a single post where I made any argument that resembled what is being discussed in the debate?

 

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

 

attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical absolutes

 

No where have I argued that. A key element to my argument is that not only is such an argument doomed to failure, it would also remove the faith required for religion to have any meaning if it was successful.

 

Attributing that argument to me just goes to show what I have said all along that either you don't understand what is being discussed or you are deliberately trolling.

 

I think the appropriate saying here is; 'keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.'

Of course this is also the main crux of our debates, even in areas where we might have some aggreement.

What you descibe as 'dogmatic thinking' I might describe as 'deterministic thinking'. The idea that not all opinions are equally valid and that there is clear right and wrong in life and there is a clear, logical process that can be learned which allows an individual to develop, what I've previously called, a bulls**t detector so they don't leave themselves open to accepting all sorts of nonsense that may get them into trouble because they can't distinguish fact from fiction.

I've got a good bulls**t detector which is why I'm on here debating you and the 'religiously persecuted' (where's tab1 when you need him) like Grahame.

 

Can you also please explain what you mean by 'dogmatic thinking' and give examples of where you think it's acceptable and where it's not?

 

One obvious example is your failure to understand what has been said and your continual posting in glee as if you do. Another example was you dumping a half page of Dawkin's about the epicurean argument derailing the thread from the topic with the only possible justification of providing further evidence that you are not bothered about how your posts are perceived. In fact just about every post you have made on this thread demonstrates a fundamentalist approach to the truth that would make any Creationist proud.

[Wildcat]

I've just watched this and it gets a bit deep in places but you can see through the logic of the debate that the idea of a metaphysical god is just as stupid as believing in any other god.

 

Arguing with anyone that is a Creationist is like shooting fish in a barrel. It shouldn't take an hours worth of youtube video to work out the argument being argued against is a nonsense.

[Wildcat]

It's off topic for third parties because it's got nothing to do with them. It's what I interpret what you're doing that's important and therefore I'll continue to raise concerns as and when I see them.

 

Which, if you're using two different commputers that aren't connected in any way (eg, laptop and iphone) then there's very little the mods can do about it unless the poster makes a clear error in one of his posts. All I'll continue to do is raise my concerns as and when I see them and if the person who's moderating the site picks up on my concerns then I'm sure action would be taken.

 

Be my guest, it only makes you look more foolish

 

I made the point here from post 494 where I first start talking about comparing societies of high religiosity with societies of low religiosity (secular).

 

So if you introduced the topic why then is it a red herring when people respond to you?

 

It's irrelevent in the respect that I'm looking at the fundamentals of all the inequalities you find in religious societies and not simply looking at poverty (which you have yet to define anyway) which is irrelevent because it's a single issue which is not something I'm prepared to argue about.

I'm arguing the case that the cause of these clear inequalities comes from an understanding that they are endemic in the scriptures that dictate policy in these societies providing unarguable proof that there is a direct correlation as highlighted in this report and the numerous links near the end of the report.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

 

My definition of poverty was fairly clearly defined to be relative, since I referenced the equality trust and since we are discussing inequality

 

Your whole argument on inequality here is new a total nonsense.

 

Inequality derives from economic and political models, social history and power struggles between the groups in society. It has nothing to do with religion except in so far as it is a part of the social structure. Its involvement is obviously complex with some aspects striving for equality and others for conservatism. Religion clearly is not the cause, if anything it is a product of inequality.

 

Your research would be the one that uses as as a Religious indicator for selection and scoring:

 

Bible literalism (a proxy for the conservatism of mass faith)

 

So it is not a study about religion as a whole at all, its evidence is sourced from a particular type of religion. If you take its findings to be about religion in general then the study is guilty of selection bias and is worthless.

 

As I never made the point that nowhere in history has there never been anything attempted by religious organisations to create lesser inequalities therefore you're simply attempting to build yet another strawman instead of tackling the fundamental issues of the effects of religiosity on society that you have yet to address.

Basically, one Swallow doesn't make a summer.

 

You mean, wild accusations like this.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf

 

So the religion you think is the cause of inequality, is also a cause of equality...

 

Also I think you should look back at the debate and what I was responding to:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6862585&postcount=574

 

Your repeated request for me to provide examples of where religions have reacted to inequality... hence Francis of Assissi, hence my references to liberation theology....

 

You repeatedly ask me for something, and when I give you the examples you request you claim I am arguing against a claim you never made.

 

As I'm not talking about poverty (very subjective and emotional term) this is again completely irrelevent.

 

You were saying this earlier.....

 

I'm arguing the case that the cause of these clear inequalities comes from an understanding that they are endemic in the scriptures that dictate policy in these societies providing unarguable proof that there is a direct correlation as highlighted in this report and the numerous links near the end of the report.

 

.... so despite your denials quite clearly you are making that argument.

 

Just to make it clear I'm only talking about fundamental prejudice, abuse and discrimination against gays, women, the disabled etc. I'm not going to get into a 'class war' argument which usually deals with the ridiculous notion that because there is inequality in wealth then there is inequality in every other aspect of society. That nonsense is for another thread.

 

>snipped section of the link below of Jensen 'dipping his toe into the water' of the debate but simply reinforcing the argument that the higher the religiosity in a society (the amount x the conservatism) the more inequalities are prevalent<

 

Just to confirm that I'm not saying that religion is the only thing in society that causes inequality. I'm saying that it's the bedrock that enables and gives justification for these inequalities to exist.

 

This Jensen dipping his toe in to the debate, has actually published much more on the topic and knows a lot more about what he is talking about than your source with his obvious selection biasses.

 

So just to be clear you are in fact making a totally different argument to the one you were making earlier.... indeed earlier in the same post.

 

I don't know why I bother arguing with you. It is completely pointless.

[plekhanov]

Just look at this terribly offensive thread started just yesterday:

 

"Xmas on way, wallet quivering"

 

Which given the lack of theists berating the OP for their scandalous use of an abbreviation must mean they somehow all managed to miss it. I mean its certainly not as if all the whining in this thread is artificial constructed so as to provide an excuse for extended personal attacks upon atheists who dare critique their precious ideology or anything is it.

[onewheeldave]

Just look at this terribly offensive thread started just yesterday:

 

"Xmas on way, wallet quivering"

 

Which given the lack of theists berating the OP for their scandalous use of an abbreviation must mean they somehow all managed to miss it. I mean its certainly not as if all the whining in this thread is artificial constructed so as to provide an excuse for extended personal attacks upon atheists who dare critique their precious ideology or anything is it.

 

But you know full well that most of the people who find 'xtian' undiplomatic/objectional have no problem whatosever with 'xmas'.

 

Xmas is a long-standing and widely used term, 'xtian' is not a common or widely used abreviation.

 

A quick search on google will indicate that the majority of occurances of 'xtian' are by anti-theists in arguments trying to get a rise out of believers (or, in some cases, anti-theists who perhaps do genuinely believe it is a simple and non-objectional abreviation).

[plekhanov]

But you know full well that most of the people who find 'xtian' undiplomatic/objectional have no problem whatosever with 'xmas'.

 

Xmas is a long-standing and widely used term, 'xtian' is not a common or widely used abreviation.

 

A quick search on google will indicate that the majority of occurances of 'xtian' are by anti-theists in arguments trying to get a rise out of believers (or, in some cases, anti-theists who perhaps do genuinely believe it is a simple and non-objectional abreviation).

How is that anything but a more roundabout way of repeating what I just said? As I've pointed out on numerous occasions throughout this thread that we'll soon be seeing signs wishing everyone a "Merry Xmas" is strong evidence that the root of all the whining in this thread isn't 'offence' at people abbreviating 'Christ' to 'X'. The 'offence' is at people daring to use reason and evidence to critique Xianity in the same way other ideologies are habitually critiqued.

 

Incidentally I wonder what an search on those who use the terms like "militant atheists" and who declare the Soviet Union "was based on atheism" would reveal? Do you think it would return posts by "diplomatic" people genuinely interested in "rational discussion/communication"?

[plekhanov]

Are you really trying to argue that the offence people have repeatedly expressed is constructed?

Of course it is as is demonstrated by all the theists who've used this thread to indulged in extended personal attacks upon atheists but who strangely haven't piled into this thread to abuse best sheff for committing the grievously offensive sin of using a common abbreviation for 'Christ'.