Religion Burning the Quran

[Wonaeamirri33]

It's disappointing the way this has ended up - there were moments in the thread where I actually thought that constructive and relevant debate was taking place between me and you here, but now it's well and truly regressed to the "You are an asshat" level, hasn't it.

Are you really incapable of engaging in honest debate with anyone who doesn't already mostly agree with you on the subject? Because for the most part, that's the impression you give. And the way you blame others for your own actions in this regard just makes such interaction even more futile and senseless.

You produce the same verballing, and otherwise absurd, abusive, reductive, fallacious and diversionary stuff, time after time, on thread after thread. Which of course often leads to me giving up on debating you and having a go at you for your behaviour instead, then you intensify those obnoxious antics, and the thread gets dragged further down into slush.

It's not like a pattern hasn't been well established, and it's certainly not as though I'm the only one you play these childish games with, because I've seen plenty of other posters fall into the same trap with you as well.

I'm inclined to just assume that it's pointless to engage you on a subject, because of the extreme likelihood that such discussion would always end up turning into a pissing contest, but it'd be nice if that wasn't the case.

 

[Paradigm]

Well that was obvious - I mean, it wasn't exactly subtle, was it?

When faced with a reductio ad absurdum response, my first instinct is, as you would've guessed by now, to take the piss.

That's the way I play it.



Not going by the content of that other post around 10 pm last night, from what I can see

Precisely. However, that certainly doesn't mean that the only form of valid response within a debate is unsourced, unbacked assertions which have no basis but personal opinion.

And it certainly doesn't justify the automatic dismissal of statements from people with clear authoritative knowledge in, and expertise on the subject matter, who were substantially more closely involved in the events I was referring, as being "other people's opinion" and not somehow not worth bothering about.



That is obvious. And blindly throwing all manner of accusations under the sun at someone who you disagree with on a topic does also, clearly, not constitute an argument.

When logical argument is not forthcoming, and when the nature of response is as diversionary and ridiculous as that, then yeah, I'm usually strongly inclined to ridicule that response.

Firstly, I am not in slightest bit even miffed, let along indignant or angry. I find your ten paragraph responses amusing - for about the first two. Then I don't bother with reading much more because it's all the same.

This is also amusing

You produce the same verballing, and otherwise absurd, abusive, reductive, fallacious and diversionary stuff,

I see you are never at a loss for adjectives.

OK - I think I get you now. "Search internet for opinion same as mine - quote said opinion as fact - abuse others because they do not share that opinion - respond with "but these are smart people " type argument - resort to thesaurus for final thrust at making myself seem intelligent through overly adjectival (?) insults. "
Is that how it goes? In a nutshell - I think I'm right.

 

[TheBloods]

It's disappointing the way this has ended up - there were moments in the thread where I actually thought that constructive and relevant debate was taking place between me and you here, but now it's well and truly regressed to the "You are an asshat" level, isn't it.

No, you are! Asshat is a great expression!

Are you really incapable of engaging in honest debate with anyone who doesn't already mostly agree with you on the subject?

I've had plenty of decent debates here. I've also had some ridiculous ones.

You need to recognise your share of responsibility in any of these puerile 'no you are' exchanges, which we've both done with other people.

I'm happy to give them a rest. They do waste a lot of time, with little purpose.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

You need to recognise your share of responsibility in any of these puerile 'no you are' exchanges, which we've both done with other people.

I'm happy to give them a rest. They do waste a lot of time, with little purpose.

I couldn't be more supportive of this posting, and I'm very glad to see it. Very well said, I appreciate you coming back and responding like that

And yeah, it's reasonable to admit I've let myself get easily caught up in such exchanges at various times as well, that's a fair and obvious enough point, I certainly have.

No, you are! Asshat is a great expression!

It works better in picture form, I reckon

Just couldn't resist putting that in

 

[TheBloods]

Nice!

 

[Malifice]

Bloods, from memory you're a Christian.

Obviously we both agree this Christain pastor should have the liberty to burn what he wants (inciting racial and religious hatred arguments aside).

Bearing in mind his stated goal was to 'attack Islam by sending a strong message'

Do you argree that this action (publicly burning the Koran) is:

a) Christian (having regards to the Christian proverb of 'turn the other cheek' and the seven Christian virues)?

or

b) Wise (having regards to the potential to antagonise the minority fundamanetalists, and questions of interpretation by those he influences such as his congregation)?

 

[TheBloods]

Bloods, from memory you're a Christian.

No, I am agnostic. I despise the concept of religion except from the perspective of historical studies.

Obviously we both agree this Christain pastor should have the liberty to burn what he wants (inciting racial and religious hatred arguments aside).

Bearing in mind his stated goal was to 'attack Islam by sending a strong message'

Do you argree that this action (publicly burning the Koran) is:

a) Christian (having regards to the Christian proverb of 'turn the other cheek' and the seven Christian virues)?

or

b) Wise (having regards to the potential to antagonise the minority fundamanetalists, and questions of interpretation by those he influences such as his congregation)?

I've already stated I think he is a fool.

 

[Malifice]

No, I am agnostic. I despise the concept of religion except from the perspective of historical studies.

My bad.

As a related question (from a fellow agnostic) how is it that you can 'despise' religion?

Perhaps one or more of them of them is 'right'?

Personally I have a distaste for pushy or extremist religious views (including militant atheists such as Dawkins).

I wouldnt go so far as to say I despise the very concept of religion however.

 

[TheBloods]

My bad.

As a related question (from a fellow agnostic) how is it that you can 'despise' religion?

Perhaps one or more of them of them is 'right'?

Personally I have a distaste for pushy or extremist religious views (including militant atheists such as Dawkins).

I wouldnt go so far as to say I despise the very concept of religion however.

Religion is all invented by man. It is so convoluted and nonsensical that it cannot possibly have been created by any true god.
Strident fundamentalist claims that their religion is right is similar to strident claims of atheists. At least the latter are arguing from the null position as opposed to the positive one.

My problem with religion is that throughout history - and still today - it has too many negative impacts on society.

It does have some positive ones, but none of those should require the mythical invention of a series of rituals, deities, rules, etc.

From an historical perspective I find it fascinating to study. I also find war fascinating to study. Neither of them are particularly attractive traits of man and we'd be better off without either in the modern world.

 

[Malifice]

Religion is all invented by man. It is so convoluted and nonsensical that it cannot possibly have been created by any true god.
Strident fundamentalist claims that their religion is right is similar to strident claims of atheists. At least the latter are arguing from the null position as opposed to the positive one.

My problem with religion is that throughout history - and still today - it has too many negative impacts on society.

It does have some positive ones, but none of those should require the mythical invention of a series of rituals, deities, rules, etc.

From an historical perspective I find it fascinating to study. I also find war fascinating to study. Neither of them are particularly attractive traits of man and we'd be better off without either in the modern world.

Intresting.

I think perhaps you are missing some of the many good things that religion provides people, and focussing on the bad.

Not just charitable works in the billions annually, but also hope and a sense of community.

I have no real problem with it.

Just wish people could stop and see the irony in killing for it.

 

[TheBloods]

Yes, I can appreciate the sense of community and also the experience of ritual and occasion. But I don't think those offset the problems and I don't think they necessarily require religion. When I talk about positive aspects, I am referring to charity and support networks, but I think they can be done - or should be able to be done - without religion.

 

[Malifice]

Yes, I can appreciate the sense of community and also the experience of ritual and occasion. But I don't think those offset the problems and I don't think they necessarily require religion. When I talk about positive aspects, I am referring to charity and support networks, but I think they can be done - or should be able to be done - without religion.

It certainly is a fascinating universal phenomena.

Love to know what other animals think about 'why' and 'where to after death'.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Yes, I can appreciate the sense of community and also the experience of ritual and occasion. But I don't think those offset the problems and I don't think they necessarily require religion. When I talk about positive aspects, I am referring to charity and support networks, but I think they can be done - or should be able to be done - without religion.

I'd have to agree with this point as well - that matches closely with my own thinking in this area

Substantial charitable works and communal togetherness (I assume that's what you mean by support networks) are provided by organised religion in various respects, but organised religion also has a lot of problems which inevitably come with it, and it would be far more beneficial if such charitable activities, and a greater sense of community, could occur without that.

And to my mind, communal togetherness did exist to a substantially greater degree in the Western world back three or more decades ago, before Thatcherite attitudes towards 'society' became the dominant influence, communal infrastructure began to be steadily atomised, and the social fabric was slowly commoditised, for lack of a better description.

The consumer culture, and the idea of self-gratification above all else, at the heart of that, is endemic in Australia as much as it is anywhere. As it stands now, it seems like that presents a strong obstacle to communal cohesion, and to the idea of self-sacrifice for the community.

 

[Malifice]

I'd have to agree with this point as well - that matches closely with my own thinking in this area

Substantial charitable works and communal togetherness (I assume that's what you mean by support networks) are provided by organised religion in various respects, but organised religion also has a lot of problems which inevitably come with it, and it would be far more beneficial if such charitable activities, and a greater sense of community, could occur without that.

And to my mind, communal togetherness did exist to a substantially greater degree in the Western world back three or more decades ago, before Thatcherite attitudes towards 'society' became the dominant influence, communal infrastructure began to be steadily atomised, and the social fabric was slowly commoditised, for lack of a better description.

The consumer culture, and the idea of self-gratification above all else, at the heart of that, is endemic in Australia as much as it is anywhere. As it stands now, it seems like that presents a strong obstacle to communal cohesion, and to the idea of self-sacrifice for the community.

Ive put religion in the too hard basket.

Lets start with perceptions of Race, removing borders and flags.

Get rid of those things and we would have a lot less wars than if we got rid of religion.

Plus they are more practical targets.

 

[TheBloods]

Ive put religion in the too hard basket.

Lets start with perceptions of Race, removing borders and flags.

Get rid of those things and we would have a lot less wars than if we got rid of religion.

Plus they are more practical targets.

Yes, but the problem with that is humans naturally congregate so are going to form groups around like cultures. The tribal mentality is instinctive. And it does have the benefits of organisation, which doesn't work without some form of delineation of responsibility. Hence we get nations, borders and flags.

 

[TheBloods]

I should clarify that when I said I 'despise' religion, that was a bit too strong. Probably more the case that I have a healthy disdain for the institutions of religion and what it makes people do. At the same time I love it because it is such good value to study.

 

[00Stinger]

Talk about asking for trouble, this nutter could end up having his church blown up.

Maybe a few hundred people should turn up on the day with bibles & threaten to burn them, if he goes ahead with it.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010...rning_7908219.html?boxes=Homepagebusinessnews

Yet the muslims are fine to burn American flags in their country?

 

[Malifice]

Yet the muslims are fine to burn American flags in their country?

Not this s**t again.

Way to miss the point.

 

[Paradigm]

It's a good point you have failed to address

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19115943&postcount=127

120 posts ago.

 

[Malifice]

It's a good point you have failed to address

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19115943&postcount=127

120 posts ago.

For the love of God.

No-one is saying you cant burn the Quran (or the Bible or the Torah or whatever). He can burn a million of them for all I care.

I just fail to see what good it does?

Aside from further alienate Islam (and Muslims)in the West that is, send the message that this is a Christian vs Islam thing, and give the fundies more ammuntion and a damn fine propaganda article to fuel the hatred.

Add to this the fact that this guy is a Christian Minister and is doing this to 'attack the Muslims' and 'strike back'.

He misses the point completely.

 

[00Stinger]

Not this s**t again.

Way to miss the point.

The point is he is in a free country and should be able to do as he pleases as long as he is breaking no laws.
I am not saying he is right or wrong with his actions

 

[Malifice]

The point is he is in a free country and should be able to do as he pleases as long as he is breaking no laws.
I am not saying he is right or wrong with his actions

No disagreement from me.

Just a stupid thing to do at best, and counter productive at worst.

Inciting hatred isnt going to help anyone.

 

[Paradigm]

.....like burning the flag.

 

[Malifice]

.....like burning the flag.

Exactly. Do it if you want, but its more often than not counter productive.

Why you dont see protesters doing it in the 'West' all that often.

Just gets the rednecks offside.

 

[Paradigm]

Yet does a burning of the flag receive the condemnation that this guy did? No.

Hypocrisy.