The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: So, Let's Get to the Point....

Re: So, Let's Get to the Point....
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, December 20 2011, 1:08:00 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> >> I did not explicitly object or oppose that thing or the other.
>>>>
>>>>...sure you did.
>>>
>>>I did not. Prove it.
>>
>>....sure you did.
>
>If I did, prove it with a quotation. If I didn't, then either you misunderstood or you lied.

...I never lie. Why don;t you give us your position then...if you aren't playing games? What do you have against stating your actual beliefs? Enough playing around.
>
> this conversation is being read by all the people who read here...I am only nominally talking to you
>
>Then why do you care what I personally believe?

...it depends on what you believe..I would have thought a thinking human bean has thoughts to share....maybe you don't. This is after all a forum...that means a marketplace for the free exchange of ideas...presumably YOUR ideas...as I and everyone else clearly state ours....try it.
>
> If you and I were in a room by ourselves I might say "good morning" to you...but not much else.
>
>Then why do you say “I want to talk to you and not to your sources”? It isn't a private, one-on-one competition.

...no, but neither do I want to play college coffee shop where each student spits out what he read somewhere else...I assumed you had original thoughts to share, thoughts you actually hold dear...as do the rest of us.
>
> >>Obviously you do not know what a loophole is.
>>
>>...it always comes to this..."you don't know". You haven't bothered to define the word yourself,
>
>I found this example: the law in one county said that the size of a retail store should not exceed a certain limit. Wal-Mart wanted to build two separate stores next to each other. The law did not explicitly say anything against that. That's a loophole. Likewise, if the law defines marriage as a union between two citizens, one might consider it legal for two men to marry because the law does not explicitly say “a man and woman”, it merely says “two citizens”.

....the law doesn't say anything about a man and a woman or even citizens...it does say "adults",....but even there you can be a minor with a parent's permission. There is no loophole here...not unless you could show that minors could marry and that this exception had been overlooked...nothing was overlooked...there is no loophole because there is NO LAW stating what KINDS of adults can marry. Your people are TRYING to create a law which will ban Gay people...it doesn't exist yet, unchallenged...so where would be the loophole?
>
> Don't go running again
>
>You are still young. You can run as well. It's good for your cholesterol.
>
> define what you mean by "religion"
>
>Any definition that encompasses all religions. I assume all religions have at least the following in common:
>
>1. A claim for the existence of a deity.
>2. A set of ethical laws (for example, the ten commandments).
>
> I'm assuming this is actually something you believe and not another sideshow.
>
>Why do you care? You are not “nominally talking” to me.

...but I am talking AT you and THROUGH you to others...if you can benefit by this or show holes in my argument and enjoy that kind of thing, go ahead.
>
> I say religion is never worth it because it stunts Reason and Logic, primarily....then it damages compassion, kindness, generosity and on and on.
>
>My initial argument was that religion compels people to behave morally. Atheism entails moral relativism. And you said?

...the Golden Rule is enough and isn't relative....it is religions which have changed their "commandments" and what they say god expects of them. In Christian societies young girls of 12 and 14 were married off...it took civil laws to stop that practice....many more examples abound.

...show where religion compels people to behave morally...I don;t see it. There is not a single "good" which did not exist before Christianity, or the other two...not one. No society would have endured to the point of any prophet's birth if it did not prohibit murder and theft and rape...did not compel respect for parents and laws....it took no religion to teach people how to behave morally in this regard...but it did take a religion to tell people they must stone to death a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night...or an adulterer...or compel people to cut living tissue from a baby's body...while you can't show what kindnesses religion FORCED on us...I CAN show what barbarities it brought.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9