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

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

 

It's pretty much the complete opposite of what you just said- you're maintaining that anyone who objects to the use of 'xtian' is basically not bothered by it at all, but just pretends to be, whereas I'm maintaining that they are not pretending- they not only have good reasons, but those reasons have been clearly stated (in this thread, amongst others).

[Halibut]

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'.

 

There's nothing strange about people not piling into best sheff for their use of 'Xmas'.

It's an unfortunate abbreviation in my view, but last time I looked best sheff wasn't one of the most vociferous and aggressive atheists on the forum, nor, I suspect is he/she using the term in a manner calculated to be dismissive and offensive to others.

 

Xmas is a common enough abbreviation, used by lazy people.

Xian is rather rarer - I've only ever seen it used by yourself, in the context of your aggressive trashing of anything Christian.

[plekhanov]

There's nothing strange about people not piling into best sheff for their use of 'Xmas'.

It's an unfortunate abbreviation in my view, but last time I looked best sheff wasn't one of the most vociferous and aggressive atheists on the forum, nor, I suspect is he/she using the term in a manner calculated to be dismissive and offensive to others.

 

Xmas is a common enough abbreviation, used by lazy people.

Xian is rather rarer - I've only ever seen it used by yourself, in the context of your aggressive trashing of anything Christian.

Wow so you started this whole thread just to have a go at me, doesn't the forum have a policy about personal vendettas?

 

Also are you more than a little embarrassed that of all the things I've said about Xianity, which you apparently really don't like, the only response you've got to that is to whine about my use of a common abbreviation? Is it really too much to ask for you to at least attempt to take on the substance of anything I say instead of so pathetically sniping?

 

What was that you were saying in the other thread about 'playground bickering'? Perhaps you should look to the log in your own eye.

[six45ive]

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

 

Well here actually, in response to me asking you what your understanding of metaphysical is.

That they are methods of conveying non-literal, unmeasurable information.

 

TAG works in the same way that it provides an argument for god in a 'non literal, unmeasurable' way. The problem is that it uses some clearly logically flawed thinking to get there.

 

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.

 

Not at all. You can still have faith in something that's real or potentially real (eg, I have faith that SWFC won't go out of business in the next few weeks:D)

 

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'm not attributing that argument to you. You've done exactly the same thing yet again in picking out the odd sentence in a whole ream of information and claiming 'that's not what I said/mean' and totally disregarding the rest of the argument which unarguably leads to the conclusion that refutes the fundamentals of your argument.

 

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.

 

Of course the truth is the truth. If it's not what is it?

[six45ive]

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

 

Because, as usual, you don't address the point raised. You address the point from your own ideological standpoint rather than addressing the reality of the situation.

 

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

 

Which I've already stated I'm not interested about turning this into a political thread which is precisely what you're trying to do hence the red herring remark.

 

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

 

My whole argument is looking at the fundamentals of the role religion plays in the inequalities in society. I've provided plenty of evidence that this is the case. You however have tried to deflect the argument by looking at the inequalities that politics have on society without seeming to understand or accept that the whole political ethos in countries with high religiosity is underpinned by the religion in that particular society.

 

Inequality derives from economic and political models, social history and power struggles between the groups in society that historically have a strong religious ethos at their core.

 

My bold.

I've adjusted you statement so that it reads more accurately.

 

 

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.

 

Once again you assert something without backing it up in any meaningful way.

There are numerous examples out there that simply prove your meaningless assertion wrong as all the religious and pseudo religiously ideological wars prove.

Religion is clearly the cause. It's about saying 'my faith is the correct one and yours is false hence we'll do things my way'.

Secularism is the very antithesis of this.

 

 

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

 

Can you expand on this statement?

 

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.

 

Yes, basically theism but I would say it's also applicable in the less dogmatic religions such as buddism and jainism. Therefore it's findings are completely acceptable when looking at first world societies as this is the dominant type of religion here.

 

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

 

That's a very simplified and misleading statement on what I said.

It's probably best summed up by this quote from Steven Weinberg;

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

 

 

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

 

But as I'd already brought up the point in 494 it's from this standpoint that I'm arguing.

 

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....

 

My point proved yet again. You provide the odd example that goes against my general statement and for some reason you think that trumps it when it only ends up reinforcing the point I was making as highlighted once again by this statement.

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”

 

 

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

 

I'm making the argument that the fundamental inequalities of society are caused by religion and that it's the dissemination of those inequalities by various social and political means that is the problem.

Secularism deals with those fundamental issues regarding religion.

 

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.

 

Once again please provide a link so I can make a judgement on your blind assertions.

 

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.

 

Actually I think the problem is that you're so engrossed in your own mindset that it blinds you to the issues that somebody else is highlighting that your mindset can't comprehend.

 

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

 

Nobody's forcing you to. As I said earlier I'm not really here to argue or debate I'm here to tell you where you're wrong.

 

PS. I notice you still haven't given me any examples of where you think 'dogmatic thinking' may be acceptable.

[leviathan13]

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?

 

This is where it isn't so black and white, unlike the world that you live in.

 

If Jesus hadn't been crucified, he wouldn't have died for our sins, apparently. If an evil act hadn't been committed, your saviour wouldn't have become the martyr.

 

There has to be bad in the world to allow the good to shine through.

[sccsux]

I've only ever seen it used by yourself, in the context of your aggressive trashing of anything Christian.

 

I suggest you look a little harder then, as you're sorely mistaken.

[Grahame]

This is where it isn't so black and white, unlike the world that you live in.

 

If Jesus hadn't been crucified, he wouldn't have died for our sins, apparently. If an evil act hadn't been committed, your saviour wouldn't have become the martyr.

 

There has to be bad in the world to allow the good to shine through.

 

 

That is true, but I would rather there wasn't any bad.

 

By the way I define bad as anything that is harmful either to ourselves or other people.

[Fishcake]

so much bickering, sniping and odd debates. It seems some arguments are going on where people aren't reading what the other person is saying. A lot of these "debates" seem nothing more than shouting matches. If we start a pointless argument thread for you all would that be better? Imagine the post count on that one!

[Wildcat]

Well here actually, in response to me asking you what your understanding of metaphysical is.

 

TAG works in the same way that it provides an argument for god in a 'non literal, unmeasurable' way. The problem is that it uses some clearly logically flawed thinking to get there.

 

Yes, quite clearly there is when just because I gave a definition of metaphysical in response to you asking me too, I am suddenly arguing Creationism

 

I am an atheist why on earth would I do that

 

Not at all. You can still have faith in something that's real or potentially real (eg, I have faith that SWFC won't go out of business in the next few weeks:D)

 

Your example is of having faith in something undecided, it is not an example of having faith in something you know to be true. If you know something is true then by definition you do not have faith in it, the nature of your relationship with the concept is knowing, not faith.

 

I'm not attributing that argument to you. You've done exactly the same thing yet again in picking out the odd sentence in a whole ream of information and claiming 'that's not what I said/mean' and totally disregarding the rest of the argument which unarguably leads to the conclusion that refutes the fundamentals of your argument.

 

You attributed the TAG argument to me again at the start of this post, now you are saying you haven't

 

Of course the truth is the truth. If it's not what is it?

 

What has that got to do with me pointing out your irrational approach to this debate.