Religion Just Sucks Hairy Balls and then Some

[(Q)]

If you could actually argue a point instead of trolling.

At least supe is honest.

I'm not wasting time with you anymore.

So, the fact that each and everytime you attempt to prop up your weak arguments with strawmen tactics, and one is not able to argue strawmen tactics, they are automatically considered to be trolling?

Each time you use strawmen tactics is a waste of time, our time, not yours.

 

[S.A.M.]

Theist leaders who make those decisions.

You'll find, if of course you actually wanted to know, that countries with the highest theist demographics have the most problems with guns.

more TDM. Yawn.

 

[S.A.M.]

Each time you use strawmen tactics is a waste of time, our time, not yours.

And each time you troll is a waste of my time as well.

So lets not waste OUR time anymore, shall we?

Have fun.

 

[falcon22]

You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out. I thought religious people had more balls than that. I mean, after all, don't you suck them? Hairy ones too?

 

[draqon]

this "hairy-ball" discussion...what is its purpose currently?

 

[S.A.M.]

You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out. I thought religious people had more balls than that. I mean, after all, don't you suck them? Hairy ones too?

I'm too old for such juvenile tactics.

I stopped playing chicken years ago.

 

[(Q)]

And each time you troll is a waste of my time as well.

So lets not waste OUR time anymore, shall we?

Have fun.

So, essentially, what you're demanding, is that I not point out the flaws in your weak arguments, and that your strawmen tactics be allowed to flourish while my comments be censored as trolling?

 

[(Q)]

Originally Posted by falcon22
You only seem to say "yawn" when You can't find a way to counter the argument. Cop-out.

I'm too old for such juvenile tactics.

I stopped playing chicken years ago.

Strawmen arguments ARE juvenile tactics, sam, pointing them out is not.

 

[S.A.M.]

So, essentially, what you're demanding, is that I not point out the flaws in your weak arguments, and that your strawmen tactics be allowed to flourish while my comments be censored as trolling?

This, as it usually does with you, is fast becoming a pointless waste of effort.

 

[draqon]

yeah...this is a "hairy ball" discussion.

 

[Vega]

What is this useless excuse for a thread about???

 

[(Q)]

This, as it usually does with you, is fast becoming a pointless waste of effort.

Of course it is, having someone point out the flaws in your weak arguments must be a pointless waste of effort, especially when you never learn.

 

[superluminal]

Sam,

1) Is it responsible to develop a weapon to counter those who would develop the same weapon to use against you?

2) Once the principles of projectile flight and the elastic properties of certain woods are discovered, how would you propose to prevent the development and proliferation of the bow and arrow?

As to your scientist vs engineer questions, we both engege in what is called "science". We distinguish between scientists and engineers based on the thrust of their activities. As I said, there is much overlap between the two. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

Comparing religion and science as methods is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison. One relies on doctrine and authority, the other relies on evidence and experiment. Which, of course, you already know.

Religion sucks hairy balls and then some for the primary reason that there is no way to validate or invalidate the doctrine or authority that guides it in a fair and objective way. This is the very reason that the deist founding fathers of the US of ABOMBS seperated the sacred and the secular.

Religion, for most, is a way to orient their personal relationship with the cosmos. It sucks hairy balls as a way to equitably run a society.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,

1) Is it responsible to develop a weapon to counter those who would develop the same weapon to use against you?

2) Once the principles of projectile flight and the elastic properties of certain woods are discovered, how would you propose to prevent the development and proliferation of the bow and arrow?

As to your scientist vs engineer questions, we both engege in what is called "science". We distinguish between scientists and engineers based on the thrust of their activities. As I said, there is much overlap between the two. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this.

Comparing religion and science as methods is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison. One relies on doctrine and authority, the other relies on evidence and experiment. Which, of course, you already know.

Religion sucks hairy balls and then some for the primary reason that there is no way to validate or invalidate the doctrine or authority that guides it in a fair and objective way. This is the very reason that the deist founding fathers of the US of ABOMBS seperated the sacred and the secular.

Religion, for most, is a way to orient their personal relationship with the cosmos. It sucks hairy balls as a way to equitably run a society.

Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?

edit: scientist vs engineer.

The differentiation is functional, their relationship is symbiotic.

Scientists need tools to develop their theories and engineers need scientists to base their work on. But both study science and practise the principles of science, following the same laws of nature.

 

[superluminal]

Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?

Not so fast. Answer my questions first.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not so fast. Answer my questions first.

I did.

People use sciencific principles to develop weapons to defend themselves, some people also use these weapons for murdering those they perceive as a threat or for self interest.

People use religious principles to define moral and social behaviour to ensure a functional cohesive community. Some people also use these principles against those they perceive as a threat or for self interest.

 

[superluminal]

Supe, religion is as much a tool in the hands of the powerful as science is.

Yes.

We already discussed the violence under communist governments. Idealogy of any kind is a tool.

Yes.

Do you, in the future see a society sans ideology?

No.

If you live in an atheist community, will you throw away your guns?

I'm not sure what atheism has to do with that. I'll throw away my gun when people stop attacking and killing other people. Or when guns are erradicated in total. Then I'll have a broadsword until the former condition is met. And so on.

Try this: As an ideology, atheism replaces reliance on authority of any kind and espouses a rational and objectively demonstrable accounting of why a given course of action is a good one.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure what atheism has to do with that. I'll throw away my gun when people stop attacking and killing other people. Or when guns are erradicated in total. Then I'll have a broadsword until the former condition is met. And so on.

Exactly

Try this: As an ideology, atheism replaces reliance on authority of any kind and espouses a rational and objectively demonstrable accounting of why a given course of action is a good one.

I have heard of religious groups who refuse to fight in armies as it violates their religious principles.

Do you know of any atheists who do that? (Are there atheists in the army?)

I may be unaware of this, is there any scientific group in the world (presumably atheist) that is campaigning for nuclear disarmament and trying to stop the further development of weapons of mass destruction?

I know of many religious groups who are campaigning for this.

 

[superluminal]

Exactly




I have heard of religious groups who refuse to fight in armies as it violates their religious principles.

Do you know of any atheists who do that? (Are there atheists in the army?)

I may be unaware of this, is there any scientific group in the world (presumably atheist) that is campaigning for nuclear disarmament and trying to stop the further development of weapons of mass destruction?

I know of many religious groups who are campaigning for this.

Wow sam. You really have a blind spot for this.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

There are many others. Try an unbiased google search. Scientists are probably the most ethical group on the planet presicely because they know the power they wield.

 

[superluminal]

And yes. Many consciencious objectors are non-religious. Atheists practice a form of humanism that elevates the human being for it's own sake, not because some god declared us to be worthy.