One for Barry

[Dreadful Scathe]

Anything that begins with the phrase "and I'm not talking about...".

But if I ignore the "I'm not talking about" part of "I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ATHEISM" it becomes "Atheism" which is quite a bold statement and I can't tell if its a for or against, or perhaps a starter for a discussion on it. You need to be clearer

Are you having trouble understanding English now as well as logic?

I used to think I knew a bit about both but you've rewired my brain for me and now "English" has words with new meanings and "Logic" is a small town outside Bournemouth.

[Isis]

You need to be clearer

Reminds me of some of the lovely punters at work. I'll ask them "is this lens clearer?" and they'll reply "well, it's clearer and it's more blurred, if you know what I mean."

When I'm in a lovely patient mood (which is most of the time, of course ) I'll indulge them and say "yes I understand what you mean" and move on to something else. When I'm in a crabbit mood I'll say "no I don't know what you mean. Clear and blurred are opposites, PICK ONE!"

I used to think I knew a bit about both but you've rewired my brain for me and now "English" has words with new meanings and "Logic" is a small town outside Bournemouth.

You have a brain! So glad I could assist in your education.

[TA Guy]

delete please.

[Barry Shnikov]

...(and I’m not talking about atheism so you and DS can refrain from your usual blah blah about ‘atheism is not a belief system’)

Look, that's specious.

"My criticism of cars (and I'm not talking about your Toyota Prius so don't go bleating on about how it doesn't contribute to global warming, blah blah blah)..."

...is not the way to persuade your fellow debater to focus on issues other than Prius cars. It's a bit - um - condescending.

You could try "My criticism of cars (though I would not include the Toyota Prius, like yours)..."

That's far less likely to provoke a response about the thing on whcih you don't want a response.

[Tiger Feet]

That's far less likely to provoke a response about the thing on whcih you don't want a response.

Yeah, but then you might not have anything to whitter on about while you completely avoid the point...

[Dreadful Scathe]

Yeah, but then you might not have anything to whitter on about while you completely avoid the point...

what point? theres a point?

[Barry Shnikov]

Yeah, but then you might not have anything to whitter on about while you completely avoid the point...

Why is responding to attacks from other posters 'avoiding the point'? Either their attacks are also avoiding the point, or they aren't.

If the former [answers on a postcard]

If the latter [answers on a postcard]

[Tiger Feet]

Why is responding to attacks from other posters 'avoiding the point'? Either their attacks are also avoiding the point, or they aren't.

It's an attack, now?

You can't admit that you're just rather biased and intolerant, so instead you're trying to turn it around to accuse Isis of being intolerant. You'd rather fight on by twisting words that are perfectly clear and playing the wounded puppy, rather than admit that you're just as irrational in your views as anyone else. You're not debating - you're manipulating.

[TA Guy]

It's an attack, now?

You can't admit that you're just rather biased and intolerant, so instead you're trying to turn it around to accuse Isis of being intolerant. You'd rather fight on by twisting words that are perfectly clear and playing the wounded puppy, rather than admit that you're just as irrational in your views as anyone else. You're not debating - you're manipulating.

OK. I have to butt in here. I can't allow that use of the word 'intolerance' to go unchallenged.

This from someone who supports Isis in her total intolerance of my interpretation of that parable she posted. Isis just couldn't allow herself to countenance another interpretation. There is a word for that, it's intolerance.

It's pretty common amongst religious folk, both at a mundane level like this, and at a level that results in crusades and other atrocities.

This thread is mundane and inconsequential, but it illustrates perfectly the total hypocrisy of religion and in a small way, some of the nastyness that resides in religious thinking.

[Tiger Feet]

I could explain, but this blindness that some people have towards the contradictions in religion really is soul sapping. I can't be bothered

You couldn't be bothered putting forward your argument, so what are you moaning about?

That story does nothing more than remind me that the man, rather than take responsibility for his actions, abjurated(sp?) all his responsibility to God.

And died.

God was pretty annoyed about that too. That was sort of the point.


You then said

You and Isis, seemingly having marooned yourselves in a quagmire of contradiction seem to changing the goalposts as fast as you can. *shrug*.

Which resulted in this...

Do you fancy illustating your point here? Where were the goalposts and where have they shifted to and what is the quagmire of contradiction?

But you said you're job was done and now you're coming back to act as if no-one was engaging you. It wasn't intolerance, it was your decision not to explain yourself fully and to make big statements with no intention of backing them up.

You might also want to clarify your categorising of 'religious folk', so Isis and I can tell if we fall into any.

It's pretty common amongst religious folk, both at a mundane level like this, and at a level that results in crusades and other atrocities.

'Religious' folk not agreeing that religion is generally a bad thing were the cause of the crusades. How measured and tolerant of you! Guess I'm just 'intolerant' not to agree with you there.

[TA Guy]

You couldn't be bothered putting forward your argument, so what are you moaning about?

Not moaning at all.
Just pointing out how religious hypocrisy and intolerance on such a small scale as this thread from you and Isis has it's counterpart in somewhat more important issues.

'Religious' folk not agreeing that religion is generally a bad thing were the cause of the crusades. How measured and tolerant of you! Guess I'm just 'intolerant' not to agree with you there.

That's not what I said at all, but I will accept it was a genuine misunderstanding on your part and not some attempt at mischief, so I will explain it in simpler terms.

Intolerance was the cause of the crusades.
Intolerance was the cause of Isis and you being unable to countenance an alternative interpretation of that parable.

Understand now ?

[Tiger Feet]

Not moaning at all.
Just pointing out how religious hypocrisy and intolerance on such a small scale as this thread from you and Isis has it's counterpart in somewhat more important issues.

Explain your use of the word 'religious', please? Perhaps it would be helpful if you asked what my beliefs are before you dig this hole any bigger.

That's not what I said at all, but I am perfectly willing to accept you have an alternative interpretation of what I wrote, so I will explain what you misunderstood.

Intolerance was the cause of the crusades.
Intolerance was the cause of Isis and you being unaable to countenance an alternative interpretation of that parable.

Understand now ?

Disagreeing with something isn't intolerance...deciding that you disagree with everything said by someone who has a faith in a god, simply because they choose to believe in a god, is intolerant. Thinking that religious leaders shouldn't be entitled to express an opinion on anything is intolerant. Calling anyone who prays 'insane' is intolerant.

I'm not intolerant of your opinions, I disagree with them because they are wrong. You seem to be disagreeing with mine because you believe I'm 'religious'...

[Isis]

Person A believes in God and believes that God can magically intervene in their life through prayer alone. For example, if their home gets flooded, they believe they can ignore physical means of rescue and stay alive magically by prayer alone. If their child becomes ill, they believe they don't have to call a doctor to give her medicine to make her better, they believe they just pray and she will get better by magic. On this thread, we all agree this attitude and behaviour is stupid and dangerous. We do not agree who is ultimately to blame for this girl's death and we do not agree on the wider implications for religion.

Person B believes in God but does not believe God operates by magical intervention in their day to day life. They believe we have to live in the real physical world and God helps those who help themselves. If person B has a sick child, they phone a doctor to get them medicine. If their home gets flooded, they evacuate to stay alive. They may still pray that these normal human interventions have a positive outcome but they do not expect that alone to work.

Person C: I accept your definition, tho he doesn't appear in the story.
Person A: I accept your definition, the type who believes God will do outright magic, for example, conjure up an angel to rescue him.

Person B: We have a problem, because your person B seems to survive without any magic, although he may ask for it and attribute a successful outcome to magic, he just evacuates, no magic involved according to you.

But that's wrong.
According to your own story person B doesn't just evacuate like you say, God may not send him an angel, but he arranges a boat. It's in the story!

The guy in the story was Person A. This story was clearly waaaay too complicated for you.

This from someone who supports Isis in her total intolerance of my interpretation of that parable she posted. Isis just couldn't allow herself to countenance another interpretation. There is a word for that, it's intolerance.

You demonstrated clearly that you didn't understand the story and so I have no reason to accept your misguided interpretation.

If you didn't understand Maths and stated that 2+2=5 would it be intolerant of me not to accept that?

It's pretty common amongst religious folk, both at a mundane level like this, and at a level that results in crusades and other atrocities.

1) I'm not religious
2) What evidence do you have to support the accusation "it's pretty common amongst religious folk"?

This thread is mundane and inconsequential, but it illustrates perfectly the total hypocrisy of religion and in a small way, some of the nastyness that resides in religious thinking.

What evidence do you have to support the accusation of "nastyness* that resides in religious thinking" and how has that been illustrated on this thread?

*sorry to be intolerant of your poor spelling but it's actually nastiness.

Just pointing out how religious hypocrisy and intolerance on such a small scale as this thread from you and Isis has it's counterpart in somewhat more important issues.

On this thread, we have Barry stating that religion is a bad thing generally (with no evidence to back it up) and calling religious people irrational and deluded. We have you calling them dangerous, insane, delusional, blind, hypocritical and nasty.

Can you quote from this thread (or indeed anywhere on this forum) where anyone religious has hurled such insults against non-religious people or people of a different religion from their own?

[TA Guy]

*shrug* What can I say ?

When it comes to that story, you both seem absolutely certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you are both right, and that I am wrong.

I, on the other hand, understand that it's possible for there to be more than one interpretation for that story, as in many things in life.

What boggles my mind more than anything is that you can't even see it for intolerance.

You demanding you are right doesn't make it so. You demanding there is only one interpretation of that parable doesn't make it so.

An inability to see the other persons interpretation, the other persons point of view. Sorry guys, that is intolerance. Textbook.

[Tiger Feet]

*shrug* What can I say ?

When it comes to that story, you both seem absolutely certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you are both right, and that I am wrong.

I, on the other hand, understand that it's possible for there to be more than one interpretation for that story, as in many things in life.

What boggles my mind more than anything is that you can't even see it for intolerance.

You demanding you are right doesn't make it so. You demanding there is only one interpretation of that parable doesn't make it so.

An inability to see the other persons interpretation, the other persons point of view. Sorry guys, that is intolerance. Textbook.

Your 'interpretation' of the story was that the person would have been 'dangerous' and 'insane' if they had been saved and still believed that God had a part to play in that, thus you're argument is that people who believe in God are dangerous and insane. I accept that as your 'interpretation' (feel free to elaborate on it or shift it around for purposes of clarity) but I don't agree that it is correct or right. I'm perfectly tolerant of it, but I think it is wrong. Do you understand? I don't agree with you calling people who believe in God 'insane' and 'dangerous' and it's intolerant of you to do so. You're calling people names and belittling them because they have a faith. That is religious intolerance.

I, on the other hand, having no faith and not being religious, don't call people with a faith 'deluded', 'insane', 'dangerous' or any other names and I think they are perfectly entitled to follow their faith in peace. I think they and religious leaders are perfectly entitled to their opinions. I also think that you are entitled to your opinions, but I find your anti-religious stance to be intolerant.

Just so you can be sure of what I'm saying, I'll say it again...I'm perfectly tolerant of your opposing view, but I don't agree with it.

Also, for the purposes of clarity, this has been my argument throughout, so you'll still need to provide evidence to back up your 'shifting the goalposts' accusation. Religious intolerance is wrong. Religion is not a bad thing generally.

[TA Guy]

Your 'interpretation' of the story was that the person would have been 'dangerous' and 'insane' if they had been saved and still believed that God had a part to play in that, thus you're argument is that people who believe in God are dangerous and insane. I accept that as your 'interpretation' (feel free to elaborate on it or shift it around for purposes of clarity) but I don't agree that it is correct or right. I'm perfectly tolerant of it, but I think it is wrong. Do you understand? I don't agree with you calling people who believe in God 'insane' and 'dangerous' and it's intolerant of you to do so. You're calling people names and belittling them because they have a faith. That is religious intolerance.

That bears no relationship to my interpretation, and your conclusion is just totally false.

If your really that bothered, I suggest you re-read all my posts, because you clearly either do not understand my interpretation, or your twisting the facts to suit your narrow and intolerent viewpoint.

You need to learn to separate 'belief in God' from religion. They are not necessarily the same.

Religion is not a bad thing generally.

Your confused. That's the argument you have been having with Barry.

[Tiger Feet]

That story does nothing more than remind me that the man, rather than take responsibility for his actions, abjurated(sp?) all his responsibility to God.

And died.

Pretty much what you would expect for anyone delusional enough to leave life threatening decisions to supernatural creatures.

This is most of your first post. I've highlighted the first bit which leads me to my conclusion on your interpretation of the story

Your story supports the view that God exists and will provide a magical solution but just using human methods (boats, helicopters etc).

To me that is as dangerous and as insane as relying on outright magical solutions.

Sometimes you get lucky, but mostly, you make your own solutions.

Your second post. Again, I've highlighted the bit which led me to my opinion on your interpretation. You say that believing a passing boat is sent by God is as dangerous and as insane as relying on outright magical solutions. It's in your post.

Of course, if a 'lucky' helicopter is passing it matters not whether the 'man' believes the helicopter was sent by God. If the daughter had been saved, who cares if the parents thought that was by act of God.

The problem is, of course, that's not what the story says. That's not what happened in the case of the daughter either. Your point is completely irrelevent.

The story states that the 'man' waited BECAUSE God would send a helicopter (or rescue him in some way). The man believed he would be saved by God so waited.
The daughters parents believed God would save their daughter so refused medical intervention.

It's not a case of believing after the fact, it's believing before the fact and that belief affecting decisions.



Ahem, again, what's that got to do with the story, or the daughter ?

You and Isis, seemingly having marooned yourselves in a quagmire of contradiction seem to changing the goalposts as fast as you can. *shrug*.

The story doesn't say he waited for God to send a helicopter. I understand that you have interpreted it that way, but I think you are WRONG!

The parents of the girl who died due to them not seeking medical help were NOT PART OF ANY ORGANISED RELIGION. So, what is your argument? Do you actually have one or are you just trying to make out that a tolerant view of religion and people of faith is intolerant because it doesn't accept faith or following a religion to be 'insane', like you believe? Honestly, Given the contradictions in your postings and your complete failure to back up anything you write, I've no idea what you're trying to say. I think you just want to be insulting actually.

Person C: I accept your definition, tho he doesn't appear in the story.
Person A: I accept your definition, the type who believes God will do outright magic, for example, conjure up an angel to rescue him.

Person B: We have a problem, because your person B seems to survive without any magic, although he may ask for it and attribute a successful outcome to magic, he just evacuates, no magic involved according to you.

But that's wrong.
According to your own story person B doesn't just evacuate like you say, God may not send him an angel, but he arranges a boat. It's in the story!

If I may remind you: "God is pretty exasperated with Barry and replies "I sent you umpteen people, two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"

It doesn't matter whether you take the approach of Person A: Wait for God to send an angel, or Person B: Wait for God to arrange a boat to pass by. Both are insane.
The only sane solution is to forget God and leave with the others.

If after that, the 'man' wants to attribute this successful solution to God rather than government funding, centuries of road building and some brave men who led the way, it's arguably delusional, but fine.



Exactly.

Person B doesn't appear in the story.

I could explain, but this blindness that some people have towards the contradictions in religion really is soul sapping. I can't be bothered

When you get some spare time think about Gods who magically produce boats to order and whether that is magic or not.
And before you say 'Oh the boat was a random passing one', re-read your story and the bit where God says 'he arranged the boat'.

Not blind to the contradictions, just don't use them as an excuse to call people names.

You get it! Person A's outright magic rescue angels. Person B's boats as magically "arranged" by God.

Cast aside that blindness, you can see the similarity now. Both use MAGIC!!! Yeah, she gets it!!! Well done.

At last. Phew, that took some effort.

My work here is done

So when did you feel Isis and I were being intolerant of your opinion if your job was done?

OK. I have to butt in here. I can't allow that use of the word 'intolerance' to go unchallenged.

This from someone who supports Isis in her total intolerance of my interpretation of that parable she posted. Isis just couldn't allow herself to countenance another interpretation. There is a word for that, it's intolerance.

It's pretty common amongst religious folk, both at a mundane level like this, and at a level that results in crusades and other atrocities.

This thread is mundane and inconsequential, but it illustrates perfectly the total hypocrisy of religion and in a small way, some of the nastyness that resides in religious thinking.

Big statements, nothing to back them up and no intention of doing so either. Again, I think you're just trying to be insulting. If I'm wrong, form an actual argument and back it up. Although, you might have to lay off the 'religious folk' insults, now that you realise Isis and I are not religious.

Not moaning at all.
Just pointing out how religious hypocrisy and intolerance on such a small scale as this thread from you and Isis has it's counterpart in somewhat more important issues.



That's not what I said at all, but I will accept it was a genuine misunderstanding on your part and not some attempt at mischief, so I will explain it in simpler terms.

Intolerance was the cause of the crusades.
Intolerance was the cause of Isis and you being unable to countenance an alternative interpretation of that parable.

Understand now ?

Back it up. Simple really. Back up your accusation.

*shrug* What can I say ?

When it comes to that story, you both seem absolutely certain beyond a reasonable doubt that you are both right, and that I am wrong.

I, on the other hand, understand that it's possible for there to be more than one interpretation for that story, as in many things in life.

What boggles my mind more than anything is that you can't even see it for intolerance.

You demanding you are right doesn't make it so. You demanding there is only one interpretation of that parable doesn't make it so.

An inability to see the other persons interpretation, the other persons point of view. Sorry guys, that is intolerance. Textbook.

I see your point, don't agree with it and think it's wrong. But I tolerate you.

That bears no relationship to my interpretation, and your conclusion is just totally false.

If your really that bothered, I suggest you re-read all my posts, because you clearly either do not understand my interpretation, or your twisting the facts to suit your narrow and intolerent viewpoint.

You need to learn to separate 'belief in God' from religion. They are not necessarily the same.

So, outline your interpretation, explain your use of the words 'dangerous', 'insane', 'delusional' etc and qualify all your insulting remarks about 'religious folk' and tell me what your conclusion actually is. I've re-read your posts and I can't see anything different, so enlighten me or backtrack so that you don't sound so intolerant of religion and religious people.

I'm very, very happy with my 'narrow' and 'intolerant' views that allow everyone the right to their opinion and their faith and their right to follow their religion. You are arguing that it is intolerant not to agree with you. If you have a different argument, lay it out. Somehow, I doubt you will though.

*shrug*

[TA Guy]

Your second post. Again, I've highlighted the bit which led me to my opinion on your interpretation. You say that believing a passing boat is sent by God is as dangerous and as insane as relying on outright magical solutions. It's in your post.

Ah, I think I see where you are getting confused.

The tense is important.



Do you believe it was right for the dead daughters parents to refuse drug help ?

My argument is that it was wrong. I am sure you agree.

To sit there and refuse drug help because they thought God would send a magical cure (person A, the rescue angel) is insane.
But if we extend that a bit to include the Person B & C from the parable...
...I think it would have been wrong to sit at home with their dying daughter and wait for a passing ambulance magically arranged by God to appear (person B, the magically arranged boat). It's also insane.
The correct thing to do is neither of those. The correct thing to do is use the brains you have and phone for an ambulance right away, goto hospital and accept the drugs (person C). If after that the parents wants God to take credit for the work of the ambulance drivers, doctors etc... I have a view about that, but I don't argue there right to believe that if they wish.


I hope that clears up your confusion.

[Tiger Feet]

Ah, I think I see where you are getting confused.

The tense is important.



Do you believe it was right for the dead daughters parents to refuse drug help ?

My argument is that it was wrong. I am sure you agree.

To sit there and refuse drug help because they thought God would send a magical cure (person A, the rescue angel) is insane.
But if we extend that a bit to include the Person B & C from the parable...
...I think it would have been wrong to sit at home with their dying daughter and wait for a passing ambulance magically arranged by God to appear (person B, the magically arranged boat). It's also insane.
The correct thing to do is neither of those. The correct thing to do is use the brains you have and phone for an ambulance right away, goto hospital and accept the drugs (person C). If after that the parents wants God to take credit for the work of the ambulance drivers, doctors etc... I have a view about that, but I don't argue there right to believe that if they wish.


I hope that clears up your confusion.

Ah-ha. Ok. Person B, by my understanding, wouldn't sit around waiting for a magical ambulance to turn up. They believe in God, but would act exactly the same way as someone who doesn't believe in God. They live their life in completely the same way as someone who doesn't believe in God, but believe that God is the person who created them, the world and everything in it. They take full responsibility for their own health and safety, look after their children properly and are a tolerant being. They just believe in God. They don't wait around for miracles. This is person B.

Those parents who allowed their child to die were morons. There is no defense for their (in)actions and you'd be hard pushed to find anyone of a religious leaning to agree that they acted correctly. They weren't following a religion...they just decided for themselves that praying was the answer. They were wrong. What they did was bad and, happily, that's not the way normal religious people behave. The majority of people are like person B.

[Isis]

Ah, I think I see where you are getting confused.

We're not at all confused. Thankfully we both have a very high IQ. You are the one who still doesn't understand his A,B,C's.

I set out a very clear description of Person B, which I'll repeat for the millionth time as you still don't grasp it:

Person B believes in God but does not believe God operates by magical intervention in their day to day life. They believe we have to live in the real physical world and God helps those who help themselves. If person B has a sick child, they phone a doctor to get them medicine. If their home gets flooded, they evacuate to stay alive. They may still pray that these normal human interventions have a positive outcome but they do not expect that alone to work.

But if we extend that a bit to include the Person B & C from the parable...
...I think it would have been wrong to sit at home with their dying daughter and wait for a passing ambulance magically arranged by God to appear (person B, the magically arranged boat). It's also insane.

I'll repeat this again for the millionth time:

Person B and Person C are not in the parable. The person in the parable is Person A, I REPEAT, THE PERSON IN THE PARABLE IS PERSON A

The correct thing to do is use the brains you have and phone for an ambulance right away, goto hospital and accept the drugs (person C).

Which is exactly what Person B would have done. I'll repeat it again:

If person B has a sick child, they phone a doctor to get them medicine.

If after that the parents wants God to take credit for the work of the ambulance drivers, doctors etc... I have a view about that, but I don't argue there right to believe that if they wish.

Good, you've finally grasped the point that's there's nothing 'dangerous and insane' about Person B.