Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I am a firm believer in facts and science, but here's a fact for you to chew on: religion and science are two completely different realms. What works with scientific debates does not apply to religious debates, and vice versa. This is because religion is something based on feeling, and feelings and beliefs can never be proven by scientific means... to illustrate, I quote the movie "Contact" (a totally awesome sci-fi movie that I highly recommend, or also a really cool book by Carl Sagan):


Likewise, if you go up to a scientist and say I think the dinosaurs died from an alien invasion because of something you believe in, it wouldn't fly either.

Here is where I get sappy. The only real solution is for everyone to realize that each person needs to find their own religious path based on what they feel is right. If you feel that you either need to believe in something that scientifcally makes sense or something from a religious book, either way it's your personal choice. The lack of acceptance of what other people choose and the tendency of human nature for us to all believe that we are always in the right is exactly what leads to wars and nasty forum flaming.

Also, even if you chose the belief that makes the most scientific sense to you (presence or absence of God, for example) there will never be a way to really prove it (as I basically said before in the first paragraph about proving a belief), so the whole idea that you took the most scientific choice is pretty much moot anyway.

Ya see? We're getting all riled up over a paradox.

I'm not gonna touch on the subject of "forcing vs. teaching" a specific religion to people in this post, as I really have some work I should be doing right now. Plus that's a particular sore spot for me, as I have had some bad experiences with a certain Lutheran church I went to once... anyway, that's beside the point. (and for all you awesome Lutherans, I am by no means dissing your churches I'm just dissing one of them)

Oh, and I'm agnostic by the way... I think... or am I?

EDIT: Oh, and for you guys who posted right before me about love 'n stuff, I think COLA was referring mainly to the old testament... and there really is some nasty junk in there.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

You can hate anything without obligation; only with obligation can you love something.

And most people hate obligation.

_________________
OMG BEES DOT COM is all up in the hizzy, fools!

USING THE BIBLE IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENTY AND A LOGICAL FALLACY. I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS NUMEROUS TIMES AND PROVIDED
LINKS TO DEMONSTRATE THIS WHICH YOU HAVE APPARENTLY IGNORED.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE LOGIC YOU ARE NOT DEBATING.



This isn't about religion. It's about appropriate behaviour as a parent that happens to involve the use of religion.

The bible only applies when arguing religious content, not the use of religion. Otherwise, it is a circular argument.

To which you argue that we are not to appeal to our religion? You claim we cannot use the Bible to justify our faith, and yet you know that our faith and practice are based on the Bible.

People like to say that arguing from the Bible is circular. And indeed it might be. However, it is a circle with a beginning. I have already shared that the factual basis for our Bible is in textual criticism and historicity. Until you can offer reason as to why our conclusions based on textual criticism and historicity are wrong, then we can and will continue to use the Bible as the foundation of our faith and practice.

Besides, I also cited you numerous resources as to why I do believe my religion as fact.

Your obligation is to demonstrate your claims that what we are teaching is potentially harmful and not beneficial. You have thus far failed to do so.

If it is a logical fallacy for us to appeal to the Bible as our source of truth, then it is likewise circular for you to argue that it is not. That is, until you can present reason as to why we should not.

You continually claim that we should not teach our religion as fact because it is potentially harmful and not beneficial, yet you fail to present sound reasoning or data to support your claims that it is potentially harmful.

And, I will reiterate a previous point: since you are the one trying to change us, it is then your responsibility to demonstrate we are wrong. Considering that you have no authority to dictate to us how we should conduct ourselves, you would do much better trying to persuade rather than to rant. Telling us we're wrong and saying, "I've already proved it," doesn't work terribly well. Crying "Logical Fallacy! Logical Fallacy!" just because we continue to disagree with you doesn't really change that.


I think it's only fair. If you are in fact accusing me or anyone in my church of using coercive methods in teaching our faith, then you should be willing to provide documentation or evidence to demonstrate that. Otherwise, you are only engaging in yet another false accusation.

But I see from this next quote that this is not what you are claiming, so I will leave that be for now.


I disagree. Without coercion, you cannot rightly call it force. But at least I hope this clarifies things a bit for people. They now understand that you are not accusing us of using coercion, and that the central point of the debate is whether or not we believe and teach our religion as fact. I would therefore contend that, in the absence of coercive methods, what we are doing is essentially no different than a math teacher teaching math.

And since, according to you, it's my fault that this thread is getting out of hand (although I can't possibly see why--you were the one who kept resorting to insulting and uncivil behavior), I will no longer be posting on this thread. I do not feel I have to justify either my faith or the way in which I practice it or teach it to you. If you truly feel that what we do here at Faith Lutheran Church is potentially harmful, then I suggest you contact the State of Mississippi and see what they can do to put a stop to it.


Let's clarify this: it's okay if we think that what we believe is true, so long as we don't believe it to be universally true. The nature of such truth is that it is universal. If Jesus Christ did in fact claim he was the truth, the way, and the life, then either he is lying or wrong (in which case he is neither the truth, the way, or the life), or he is in fact the way, the truth, and the life. It's simple logic.


I'm not terribly concerned about how people would respond to my posts on other boards.


I have been. I have provided reasons why I believe as I do, and why I practice my faith as I do. It just so happens that one of my points is that I am not under any obligation to submit my faith or the way I practice my faith to you, and you don't like that. Your arguments fail to convince people, so you continually lash out at them.

And incidentally, no, pro-lifers are not generally pro-war. I myself was against the war in Iraq before it even began. While I recognized that deadly force might be necessary for security, I felt the US was moving way too quickly, with passion fueled by rage over 911, and an intense desire to target Saddam personally. The same result could have been accomplished with much fewer casualties had the US not committed itself to full-scale war. So, to answer you concern, no, pro-life does not equal pro-war.

_________________

I don't even know where to begin dissecting that. If you choce to reject logic itself, there's no convincing you.

People like to say that arguing from the Bible is circular. And indeed it might be.

It IS. There's no debating this.



Every post you make has one statement that shines out as being incredibly stupid, even more stupid than the last.

Circles don't have beginnings or ends. That's the point of a circle.

Logic is one thing, kindgarten geometry another.



THERE IS NOTHING PROVING YOUR DAMN BIBLE TRUE. JUST BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE TRUE DOES NOT MEAN IT'S TRUE OTHERWISE YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY OLD NONSENSE AND PASS IT WITH FACT.



But... that doesn't acknowledge that you can force it on others.



What the f*ck are you talking about, seriously? How out of touch with reality ARE you? All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, which I had done, and hypothetical situations.

What more do you damn well want?



What? No. That's just stupid. I'm serious. As I said, fact is something which has actually been proven. You are disagreeing with the definition as fact. Your argument doesn't work for that reason.

You continually claim that we should not teach our religion as fact because it is potentially harmful and not beneficial, yet you fail to present sound reasoning or data to support your claims that it is potentially harmful.

You fail to present sound reasoning or data to support that is is potentially beneficial. I have at least provided some anecdotal evidence, and more importantly a logical construct based on basic probability as to why it is potentially harmful.

Again, I can't help you if you chose to ignore this.



No. You are the one who is forcing his beliefs, therefore you have a responsibility to demonstrate you are right.

This isn't about belief, it's about potential action. Stop acting as if it's about belief.

Considering that you have no authority to dictate to us how we should conduct ourselves, you would do much better trying to persuade rather than to rant. Telling us we're wrong and saying, "I've already proved it," doesn't work terribly well.



What? I cried logical fallacy because it IS a logical fallacy. I even linked to a description of a few logical fallacies and
explained them.
Saying I'm crying "Logical Fallacy Logical Fallacy" doesn't change the fact that your argument is riddled with logical fallacies.

Again, if you chose to usurp logic, there can be no debate.



I don't need documentation or evidence when you blasted well admit to it yourself; teaching as fact to your children that is.



You can. Restraint is only necessary if someone fights back. If you can arrange it so someone doesn't have to fight back, then you don't have to use physical force or otherwise.

You are programming them. You are forcing behaviour. You are not using obvious methods, but that only makes it sneakier.



The point is that teaching your beliefs as fact is forcing. Can we simplify and say that teaching beliefs as fact is wrong? Good. Because it is. Becuase they are your fact, and not the fact of your children who can and most likely will decide at least a little differently.



I've been through that thousands of time and i really can't believe you're so absolutely dimwitted to bring that up again.

I've exhausted just about everything and I'm not about to bring up yet another point as to why that's not true since you'll just ignore it. If you think religion, which is unproven and has no base, is as important to teach at math, you are severely out of touch with reality and should not be allowed to raise children because of it.



Uncivil behaviour is irrelevant. Refusing to accept logical terms of debate is a much more serious issue, and certainly warranting of "Uncivil" behaviour if pushed continually.



No, but you have to justify forcing it on other people..

All the same, run along little chicken.



That's a good one. A southern state, against forcing beliefs? HAH.

Plus, legality != morality, and is, OOI, another logical fallacy to use in a debate.

But since you don't believe in logic, I'll keep that one to myself.



You have a lot of nerve talking about logic when you just refuted some of the most basic principles of it.

The point is that you can believe it is universal fact, but recognise that people may disagree with you, which you fail to really do despite your supposed "respect" for other beliefs(which doesn't appear to include mine, either way).

You can believe it's true. But you can't act like it's true when dealing with other people who disagree with you.

You appaer to not be able to fully function in a world with other people. How you've managed this long is beyond me.



Why? Because you're worshipped here and that's all that matters?



My arguments fail to convince people because they refuse to accept the very basic logical principles they are based on. I lash out of them because they consistantly refuse to do so, yet still insist I'm debating.

I now think of you as a four your old who's just said "Oh yeah, well you're gay!" and then turns around and says "Look Ma, I'm debating!!!1".



You may be an exception(for once), but the majority do. Or did, anyway.

Hey Rosalie, did it ever cross your mind that maybe you could be wrong?

You're acting like you know the answer to everything, and that your opinion is universally correct. You're not even considering his side of the arguement, passing it off as "old nonsense".

Morals go beyond facts anyway. So stop trying to use facts as the only thing that can define morals.

Grow up. Look at the other side now and then.

_________________

If all you can manage is "Hey well you might be wrong! So you should grow up! Yeah", then I don't think there's much of another side to look at.

Thank you for that brilliant and yet totally irrelevant insight, Rosalie. Have you ever drawn a circle without beginning at a starting point? Or do you just plop your pencil down on the page, and the whole circle appear at once. You really are getting downright ridiculous in the way you attempt to criticize my analogy here. This isn't about geometry at all, but about whether or not there is any basis for my religion in fact. My point is that there is. The beginning point, as I explained, is in the reliability of the texts, as demonstrated by textual criticism and historicity. That is the foundation. Your criticism of my analogy is irrelevant.


And writing in all caps doesn't make your statement any more factual or convincing. If, as you claim, my faith is not factual, then offer some facts to refute it. At the very least, try to cite some credible sources or something, and address some real issues regarding historicity or textual criticism.


Conceded. Nevertheless, I still maintain that I am not forcing anyone. I am merely fulfilling my responsibility to teach it. I am not convinced that what we do can be adequately referred to as "forcing."


Then maybe your claim has no real substance in reality. If you cannot present real evidence to prove your claims, maybe you shouldn't be making them.


Again, unless you can demonstrate why I should take seriously your claim, I am not under obligation to accept them.


Wrong. I am not forcing anyone. And the last time I checked, you had no right to demand anything from me. You are the one trying to convince me I'm wrong for practicing my faith the way I do, or teaching it the way I do. Your failure to convince me does not obligate me to anything.


Oh, but it is about belief. You've already demonstrated that yourself. You cannot provide any substantial accusation of potentially damaging behavior and lack of benefit in the way we teach our faith. To you, it all boils down to the fact that we believe our religion to be fact. Therefore, at least if I follow you right, it has nothing to do with what we do, but what we teach, content rather than method.


Wrong! I admit no such thing. There is nothing wrong with teaching my faith as fact to those entrusted to my care. Again, you're confusing content with method again. To you, it's the content of what we teach that is wrong, not the way we go about doing it. Yet you continually fail to provide any sound reason for us to believe that we are wrong in either.


Negative. What we are doing is not programming them any more than a math teacher teaching math is programming them.


So you switched from one term to another. You're still basically saying the same thing, and I still disagree.


But I contend that it is factual (based on reasonable assessment of the evidence at hand), regardless of whether you accept it or not, and is at least as important as math. That, I think, is the chief difference between me and you. But here's the way I see it: if my religion is indeed factual (and by that, I mean that Jesus Christ was in fact correct when he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes unto the Father except by me"), then it is at least as important as math, science, English, or any other subject. On the other hand, if it is not correct, then it's not important enough to even bother speaking about.

I just realized something else: you and I may be operating on two different understandings of the term factual. According to you, to be considered factual, something must be proven beyond all doubt to all people who have access to the data. According to my definition, to be factual, an idea must be true, and have evidence that supports it. If that is the case, then I will confess that my faith is not proven beyond all doubt to those who have access to the data. However, there is evidence to support it (textual criticism, historicity, etc.) So, if your problem is that we teach our faith the way some atheists try to spread their atheism, i.e., to present it as beyond all doubt to the point that people must either embrace it or be considered stupid, then no. And I do not teach or proclaim my faith in that way. However, I do stand firm that there is evidence to support my faith, and I do teach and proclaim it as true (i.e., factual). I do not believe it can be so easily shoved into the realm of purely subjective personal preference and sentiment as you seem to suggest; if I did not believe my religion to be in fact true, I wouldn't bother proclaiming it or teaching it at all. Now, if that helps to clarify some distinctions between us, so be it.


Uncivil behavior may not be relevant to the issue, but it is important to note that uncivil behavior is typically not accepted within real academic debate, either. Now, I know that on some other forums, it may be overlooked, but here it is frowned upon and discouraged. And, what's more important for you to consider, it does undermine your credibility to people. You may think that airtight logic influences most people, but people do tend to repudiate uncivil attitudes. What's more, I think that since the underlying theme of this whole discussion is respect, it also seems to undermine the case you're arguing for: after all, if your wish is that Christians show more respect to other religions, then it doesn't help if you undermine your own case by failing to show that same respect. While it may have absolutely nothing to do with the facts of a case, if a lawyer in court resorts to uncivil behavior, he puts himself at risk for being charged with Contempt.

In other words, Rosalie, what I and several other people on this forum have tried to tell you is, regardless of your logic, if you actually took some of that energy and shaped it into persuasive arguments, rather than dogmatic ones, people might be more inclined to listen. In fact, had you done that, I would have simply said, "I respectfully disagree," several pages ago, and this whole thing would be over. Instead, it has escalated into what several people have referred to as a flame war. And frankly, I hate flame wars.


The state we live in has no bearing upon the discussion at hand. I was simply pointing out that you aren't really in any position to impose any demands on us whatsoever. Several times, you have tried to argue that I must submit the beliefs and practices to you for your criticism. What right to you have to make that demand? It is essentially an argument from authority, but without any real authority to back it up.


Why shouldn't I? I think I did a decent job of that on Page Nine when responding to Myrrh. I also think I did that with Steve, although I also had to correct him on his behavior at the same time.


I'll submit this one to the forum: which of the two of us seems to be doing a better job of functioning in a world with other people: myself or Rosalie?


It has nothing to do with "being worshipped here," as you constantly say. If I really cared to post on those other forums, I'd post on them. In my experience, most of them are little better than flame wars, anyway. Funny thing is I almost always tried to take a middle position on them, and I'd get flamed from both sides (or at least that's the way it happened on AudioGalaxy before it went kaput). But I will say this: if your attitude is any reflection of how people behave on those forums, I want no part of them.


Maybe if you actually spent more energy trying to offer support and evidence for your reasoning, people might be able to more clearly see what it is you expect them to believe. It seems to me that you expect everyone to think exactly like you. Plus, as stated above, if you are deliberately offensive against people, they're less likely to give a care about logic anyway. And frankly, Rosalie, the offensive behavior was there from the very beginning.

OOPS. I just realized I have contradicted myself. I had said I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore. Sorry.

_________________

Okay, so Rosalie... correct me if I got this wrong, but you don't think kids should be raised solely under the religious beliefs of their parents? Is that it? You feel that somehow they should be exposed to other options, right?

If it is, here is my opinion and ideas on the matter. I can see up to a point where you are coming from, but the thing is how do you suggest raising them then? How can you raise a child without some explanation of the things in our world that simply don't fit into neat little scientific explanations? Like it or not, not everything on earth can be explained by science or logic. If you know anything about the nature of logic, you should realize that the world in no way operates on logic. Especially the world of humanity.

There is no logical way of parenting. Parenting is something that is based entirely on the moral values of the parent(s) and their life experiences (in other words the common sense they have gathered over the years).

Also, in my opinion it is a lot less healthy for a young child to have to chose from several differing sets of moral values and beliefs than being under one single consistent system. If the kid is older, yes I believe they should be able to chose where to go with the rest of their life. But until the day they are old enough to question their parents ideas reasonably, it just seems best to keep things simple so the kid isn't confused.

On a different note, I'd like to point out some things about your posts on here. The thing that really gets to me in your posts, and please don't take this as an attack, but it bothers me that you so readily toss out the words "logic" and "fact" when the things you are debating have more to do with common sense and morality. Those things don't follow logic at all. After all, if you see a homeless man sleeping on the railroad tracks, with a train coming up fast... the logical thing to do is to preserve yourself, because the chances of you saving that man are about 50/50 (as an example). It does not make logical sense to risk losing two lives when there is a 100% chance of saving one person, that is yourself. Yet every day people risk themselves for others. Why? It certainly has nothing to do with logic and facts.

I guess what I'm also leading up to is that you really shouldn't rip on other people's style of debating when yours is just as imperfect. And I'm not trying to seem superior, I'm sure there is a lot I could improve in my debating as well. In essence, I agree with what Joshua said. When you are debating, no matter how ridiculous the other person's point of view seems, the only way you can effectively debate with them is to try to see things their way. That means considering the possibility that you might be wrong.

EDIT: On a sidenote, if you want people to be more reasonable when they debate with you the best solution is to try to seem or at least remain reasonable yourself. And mocking people is probably not the best way to get yourself credibility. I am mainly referring to the posts between you and Didymus.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

I think Jenny has a very valid point. We're not freaking Vulcans here, or robots with positronic brains (no offense to MHG and BotFriend). We're human beings. Things like emotion, sentiment, and instinct dictate at least half of what we are and how we respond to people. Reason must be tempored with tact. That, I think, is pretty much what most of us on this forum feel, regardless of what we believe.

_________________

Circles don't have a beginning and an end.

You draw a circle at one point, and finish drawing it at the same. But the mathematical construct of a circle, the shape we are attempting to represent, does not have a beginning or an end. The apparent beginning is just a flaw of the way in which we draw.

Similarily, you appear to have a "beginning" to your argument as you first attempt to make your outlandish claims. But when you get into it, there is no base. You cannot make "Head nor tails" of it, therefore it is indeed a circular argument.

And please, don't try to debate the nature of a circular argument. It's just silly.



Nor does basing your entire argument on a religious text.

At least I only wrote in upper case for a line or two...



It might be. You can't go on a "Might". They don't teach kids in school how you might spell the word "orange".



What kind of facts would you accept?

Again, that's not how debate works. Before *anyone* has any kind of opinion, you have to back it up, and I have mine to an extent. Yes, I am the one that started this debate, but nonetheless, you continue, I don't think forcing your beliefs on your children without reason is anymuch better.




Again, what kind of credible sources? When you're arguing something very close to common sense you really don't need a credible source.

I could no doubt show you dozens of websites who think the same I do. In fact, I even showed you a handful you ignored. Why should I presume you'd pay attention to any more I guess you?



You are teaching your belief as fact, that that belief says that no other beliefs are right and everything else is morally wrong.

So, maybe you're right in saying you're not forcing it on them, so much as forcing every other religion away from them. Heh.



I really wouldn't talk about that since you're arguing on the religious side here.



You have provided no real evidence to back up your claims. "God says so" isn't evidence.



Nor should you have the right to deny your future children whatever faith they fell most comfortable growing up with.



Stop making it sound innocent. What you're doing is teaching your beliefs as fact, which essentially equates as forcing.



I doubt I could convince you anyway. Considering you are in control of how much you are "convinced", talking like you are both the referee and other side of this debate doesn't work. I've only been calling middle ground in this debate when you have invalidated the terms of debate, whose instances are numerous.



It's about use of belief. You Fundies seem to love to look like you're being victimised, because you really have too little persecution up there at the top of the food chain to ever look just in such a harsh world.



I wouldn't want to entrust any kid to your "care".



No, it's denying all other alternatives.



Again, I've provided many a reason. You just refuse to accept them. Difference.



You are not the same math teacher. That is a moronic claim of the highest degree.

Maths have been proven, are real, and don't need to resort to the same childish "Oh well you can't PROVE that this theorem is wrong".

You can see maths working in action, even if they are abstract. Computers are based on our understand of mathametics, and it works.

Religion on the other hand...?



Math is important in life, which is proven. Your beliefs are only important in a supposed afterlife, which is not proven.

You can teach them appropriate values without teaching them that your religion is the only valid one for them to believe in.

There are no excuses.



Yes, despite the fact that I've had to go to several shrinks for personal issues I STILL have a tighter grip on reality than you.

You're getting whooped by an emotionally unstable little 19 year old, which I find highly amusing.



If. That's a massive if. And even then, the world doesn't work in binary.

There is no level of "If" resembling that in mathematics.



Well, my definition is the one that people actually use.



That's called "theory", not fact. Again, difference. Doesn't change what you're saying.



There's a difference here. Atheists don't deny religion to their children, at least none I know have ever done. You however deny all other faiths to them.



Your illogical behaviour preceeds my uncivil behaviour. Therefore, it was never a real academic debate to begin with.



On other forums where your particular brand of shameful christianity is not so widespread, people would point out your circular reasoning as I have.



Don't really care. You're far too frustrating to respond to in a tactful manner.

I may have been a little harsher in the beginning, and for that, I apologise, but it was based heavily from data(Actual factual modern day data ) that led me to believe that your views and behaviour would be essentially as you have displayed.



Credibility shouldn't be an issue. This isn't a schoolyard with popularity contests.



Except I don't have to show someone respect who refuses to show respect in the first place. Otherwise there can be no disctinction when someone has done something heavily wrong.

Now, with the death penalty it's different, as it involves killing someone which is a moral right I believe nobody has, and is generally more serious.



This is really just sidestepping the fact that you can't debate.

If you formed your argument based around logic(Reading up on the logical fallacies on wikipedia and making sure to avoid them), then I might be more responsive. As long as you keep making ridiculous statements like that circles do have a beginning, I can't respond to your claims in a serious and respectful manner.

Quite frankly, you're luckily I'm taking you seriously at all.



I don't think it helps your argument if you have to fall back on "You can't tell us what to do!!!".



Ad Populum. One of the worst logical fallacies, IMO. Popularity(which is what it comes down to, really) is irrelevant in this argument, yet I doubt most people would pay attention to that.

Not to mention how biased this forum is.



That's pretty irrelevant. The point is the only reason you're able to make such a shaky argument and get away with it is because the people here like you to much to think otherwise, or just plain "share" your beliefs.



I've offered loads. You've essentially offered none.



Only because I had reason to be offended. Regardless, there's no excuse for the sheer amount of holes in your argument.



Wouldn't be the first time.

Can you PLEASE stop it with that hypocritical statement? It's getting annoying. Parents naturally pass on their beliefs to their kids. I'm sure when you have kids you'll fill their heads with aethistic beliefs. Even if you don't force them, you'll imply it by the way you live and by being their superior they'll naturally learn to believe what you believe.

So stop it with that arguement. I'll let Didymust handle the rest.

_________________

"You're sure"? Why are making such a ridiculous presumption?

I don't doubt that many parents do "teach" their children their beliefs. But arguing from tradition gets you nowhere. It's still wrong and in this day and age it's easy to see that.

Why would I fill their heads with atheistic belief? I am not an atheist. I just don't believe in forcing belief on others.

And if I "imply" it by the way I live then I'm not exactly closing out alternatives, am I? Plus if I do have children, I fully intend to educate them on the different paths they can take.

Obviously, I'm not going to fill them in on the atheistic view(which I don't agree with) of life and death when they're too young to accept it, but at the same time I won't shove an entire religion down their throats JUST to avoid the question of what happened to kitty.

Actually, Joshua, I'm done arguing. It is becoming clear to me that Rosalie is simply not terribly concerned with trying to understand anyone, but rather only ranting against people who disagree with her. If anyone else besides her feels she has a point, please speak up and articulate them in a constructive manner. A real conversation with someone else on this thread would be a refreshing change right now.

_________________

Just because you're too messed up to be convinced doesn't mean that there aren't people on the sidelines there who can't be. And if they're truly smart enough to accept what I'm saying, they'll see through my supposed "Uncivil" behaviour.

Agreed. I think I'll join you.

Rosalie, a word of advice: Look through the eyes of your opponent in an arguement such as these instead of just passing it off as wrong and/or illogical. No one will listen to you if you don't.

_________________

So, those who do not accept what you're saying are stupid, and those who don't believe you are messed up, eh?
...and you say WE'RE the illogical ones.

The truth finally comes out.

I'll sit here, happy in my stupidity. Thomas, throw me a beer. This is gonna be good.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Rosalie in a nutshell.

Just letting you know that I'm not going to reply anymore. Just isn't worth it. Rosalie's arguement is both annoying and unpersuasive.

_________________

Since the opposition's argument involves disbelieving in basic logic and some of the most simple idealogies, yes, I would say a lot of it comes down to intelligence rather than agreement, the way I see it anyway.

Look, the kidlets are like little sheeps. They follow the leader. All the fricking time. You may tell them they have a choice, but you're their role model, no matter what you say, they'll always do what you do. And it won't change either. As a child, your mind is forming, and things like that, the life lessons you get from your parents, whether from their words or from their actions...well they stick around. All the freaking time. You may think that they can make their own choices, but they are going to depend on you to make them for them. Otherwise they've no place to go. As a small child, you can tell them, "You can pick from any religion" but they'll always say "I wanna be like you." That's how they are, always trying to be the same as their parents. By the time they grow up enough to make the choice themselves, they'll already know their beliefs as fact. Whether they chose to follow you, or even if you left the subject out of their life completley, they will always go with their first instinct, which will either be, 'Think back to they younger days" or "Follow the leader" both of which lead to you, molding your child's beliefs, whether you intended to or not. It's not so simple to give the kid the choice, because you'd have to have a pretty special kid to make that one without you effecting their choice. You are they one they want to be, and they are'nt going to stray far from the beliefs of yourself.

_________________
Sister, now that we're grieving
Our fingers will falter
Our lungs will be leaking
All over each other and without even speaking
We'll know that it's over and smile and go greeting
Whatever comes next

EDIT: Responding to such a stupid post in such a stupid way makes it look like I'm on the same level..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Someone close this thread already. Its going in circles.

_________________

From what I have seen of Didymus' posts (which is a lot), he is not one to believe in anyhting without having a very good logical argument behind it. I'm sure most people here are the same. Hey, I even used a valid syllogism to demonstrate that your opinion is not categorically better than anyone else's. I think everyone here understands the rules of debating and logic. And the fact that ad hominem attacks are never acceptable, even in jest.

Here is a thought experiment that will perhaps help get us out of this slump. It's simple. Assume the following postulate:

The Bible is factually correct.

I know you don't believe it is, but assume that it is. With this premise in place, look at some of the claims made in it and follow them to their logical conclusion. I think this will help you understand our arguments.

_________________

That doesn't really make for sound reason. It's rather apparent that he doesn't have a logical argument, so your perceptions are incorrect.



No, they really don't. And purely using the words isn't what counts; it's showing you know how the work.



Ad hominem is only one of many logical fallacies. I have made "personal" retorts, however, I have not based any part of my argument solidly on them. Therefore, it is not true ad hominem.



But the bible isn't factually correct, going on a global scale of things rather than a person to person one.

Since we do not have sufficent evidence, we should be working from the following postulate(though it's a little to heft to call a postulate):

The Bible is not factually correct.

I really think that's half the argument. I am assuming that my religious beliefs are not factually correct, also, to the extent that many people think I am atheist, when am in fact very much not so.

I don't see why you lot get to be any different just because you have a fancy book with a lot of funny sounding names in it.

I think I'll argue from Brian Clevinger's "Nuklear Age" as soon as I've read it.

What I meant was, assume that it is. You've hit the nail on the head: this assumption is half the argument. The reason we're going around in circles is that we're arguing from different premises. I was attempting to let you work out your opposition's argument for yourself, starting from their premise.

_________________

This is where she says you're wrong. Possibly telling you to shut up.

Coming from where you're coming, Rosalie, I can see how you could say that the Christians are being illogical. Coming from the Christian side, I can kinda see that, too. But, religion isn't about logic.
Religion is accepting that there is something greater than ourselves, forces that are beyond our control and/or comprehension.

You can't intelligently debate that with facts.
Truthfully, sometimes you can't even debate science with "facts".

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The problem is that this assumption is generally accepted as an invalid one to make when it comes to serious debate.

Check on any serious debating forum, and you'll find that. You won't get banned or warned or anything, just criticised a lot.

Except that we are debating about an area of action that very much depends on whether you believe in a religion or not, and what that religion tells you to do. It's impossible to avoid using the Bible in a discussion about whether you should teach the Bible. I'm saddened that you won't even try to see the other side's view.

_________________

No, it shouldn't depend on whether you believe in a religion or not. This is about parental behaviour abstract from the beliefs itself. The content should not matter. Saying you have to teach the bible because the bible says so is circular reasoning.

What view is there to see, in all honesty? I can't see it because it breaks logic so harshly. I do "Understand" it a lot more than I let on, but I can't ignore the fact that it's not a valid position to take.

What you don't understand is that for a truly religious person, nothing is abstract from the beliefs themselves. And Didymus has already given you several reasons why he believes the Bible to be truth. It doesn't ignore logic, it simply starts from a different premise.

_________________