BF2S Forums Standing up for my principles.

DesertFox- wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Of course we can't have a thread without the "weak-minded" being thrown in there.
Religion has a shit-ton more to do with life than the creation myths, which, although interesting, have little merit as religious tools.

If your philosophical view of life has to incorporate magic, invisible deities, and unproven promises of eternal salvation in another spiritual realm then you're an escapist. It's that simple.

^ Take note, class. This is an example of a "straw man" fallacy. Religion is more than magical stories, which are myths.

I have a lot of time for philosophy, what I don't have time for is any belief-set that asks me to assume the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically proven or observed. Any worldview that takes such leaps of faith is irrational - once you start going down that road you might as well believe in fairies, magic, unicorns, the tooth fairy, santa claus, etc.

Braddock wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Braddock wrote:

If your philosophical view of life has to incorporate magic, invisible deities, and unproven promises of eternal salvation in another spiritual realm then you're an escapist. It's that simple.

^ Take note, class. This is an example of a "straw man" fallacy. Religion is more than magical stories, which are myths.

I have a lot of time for philosophy, what I don't have time for is any belief-set that asks me to assume the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically proven or observed. Any worldview that takes such leaps of faith is irrational - once you start going down that road you might as well believe in fairies, magic, unicorns, the tooth fairy, santa claus, etc.

And here children we have an example of what we call the slippery slope fallacy.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

^ Take note, class. This is an example of a "straw man" fallacy. Religion is more than magical stories, which are myths.

I have a lot of time for philosophy, what I don't have time for is any belief-set that asks me to assume the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically proven or observed. Any worldview that takes such leaps of faith is irrational - once you start going down that road you might as well believe in fairies, magic, unicorns, the tooth fairy, santa claus, etc.

And here children we have an example of what we call the slippery slope fallacy.

Here children we have an example of someone who likes to post catchy superficial comments here and there without stating anything of any depth. Care to join the debate Flaming_Maniac, or are you just working your way through your catchphrase book one contrived comment at a time?

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I have a lot of time for philosophy, what I don't have time for is any belief-set that asks me to assume the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically proven or observed. Any worldview that takes such leaps of faith is irrational - once you start going down that road you might as well believe in fairies, magic, unicorns, the tooth fairy, santa claus, etc.

And here children we have an example of what we call the slippery slope fallacy.

Here children we have an example of someone who likes to post catchy superficial comments here and there without stating anything of any depth. Care to join the debate Flaming_Maniac, or are you just working your way through your catchphrase book one contrived comment at a time?

There is no debate here.

Just popping in to back Fox here as he notes your textbook rhetorical fallacies. I mean you're typing stuff, but no one can take it seriously when you jump straight off the deep end with every post. DAST is not a contest to see who can call religious people stupid in the most witty way possible.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes. Atheism and communism are not concepts that should be discussed in school.

Nor should religion then.
Atheism is the default position of every human born, why shouldn't it even be discussed?

All these Christians and capitalists seem to be running scared if they don't want opposing viewpoints discussed.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Of course we can't have a thread without the "weak-minded" being thrown in there.
Religion has a shit-ton more to do with life than the creation myths, which, although interesting, have little merit as religious tools.

If your philosophical view of life has to incorporate magic, invisible deities, and unproven promises of eternal salvation in another spiritual realm then you're an escapist. It's that simple.

Fool. What do you think the entire system thought up by Marx is? It's absolutely 100% impossible to make work but people keep thinking that it is, if only people put more effort into it. Fools the lot of them.

Are you Mr. T or something? FOOL!

Did I leave my "I'm Karl Marx's Number One Fan" hat on? I actually agree with you that Marxist Communism is an unattainable utopia, at least at this current stage of human evolution. Humans are too selfish and individualistic for Marxist Communism to work.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Here children we have an example of someone who likes to post catchy superficial comments here and there without stating anything of any depth. Care to join the debate Flaming_Maniac, or are you just working your way through your catchphrase book one contrived comment at a time?

There is no debate here.

Just popping in to back Fox here as he notes your textbook rhetorical fallacies. I mean you're typing stuff, but no one can take it seriously when you jump straight off the deep end with every post. DAST is not a contest to see who can call religious people stupid in the most witty way possible.

Jumping off the deep end? Asking someone to assume the existence of anything that cannot be scientifically proven or observed is irrational, that's a cold hard fact. I treat every subject the same when it comes to fact, fiction, and knowledge - religion doesn't get a free pass in that regard. There is no debate here because you're bringing nothing to the table... at least DesertFox showed early signs of putting forward a counter-argument.

No I mean I have nothing to say to the OP. There is nothing to say.

You should learn to ignore stupid shit. You'll pointlessly piss off the people who believe in it and bore the people who don't.

LividBovine wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I have to sit through the fucking Angelus every day at six o'clock on the supposedly secular State broadcast network RTÉ... so it's swings and roundabouts I guess.

Just continue to brainwash your children at home and things should be fine.

You have a choice to turn it off do you not?

I'm still legally obliged to pay €160 per annum for the TV licence though... no choice there.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yeah? Since when am I a christian? Discussions regarding the validity of religion or non-religion do not belong in school. Discussions involving communism don't belong in school because it's an economic and social system that does not work. It's like having a discussion about the tooth fairy.  It teaches the kid nothing useful for life.

Where did I say you were a Christian?

Communism worked well enough in China and the Soviet Union for long enough, and Israeli Kibbutzes didn't exactly fail.
Communism did exist and worked after a fashion, the tooth fairy didn't.
Your analogy fails.

No economic system really 'works', capitalism doesn't and will die out when the planet runs out of resources due to exponential consumption.

If I were you I'd be more worried about kids watching 'Star Trek', since that does promote communist utopia, and more subtly than a few lines in a Lennon song.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-18 15:00:36)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Well, then I apologize. The way you were constructing your argument you seemed to be saying 'well, it would work, we just need to dump religion, see?'.

Would it fuck work, hippy nonsense!

I'm a realist, and beyond that a centre-left socialist. I have no fanciful ideas about the nature of mankind and what might be achievable as a whole.

Difference between communists and socialists is about this big [].

Are you actually being serious?

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Difference between communists and socialists is about this big [].

Clearly socialism and communism should be taught in schools then, so monoculturalists like yourself would have a clue.

Something more advanced than 'capitalism is teh winz0r socialsim = fail' at least.

Unbelievable. You debate with someone, there's a little back and forth, he gives the impression of being reasonably intelligent, and then... BOOM!

...Get that shit on the curriculum ASAP!

Peter wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Varegg wrote:

They prolly chose the song based on the fact that it is a good song to choir for kids, the lyrics are simple and the tune is catchy ...

There are plenty of religous songs that are good for choir and have catchy tunes also.

If one was chosen there would be an outcry of "they are indoctrinating children!", it's the same as his daughter not being happy about a song because "it's agaisnt he religion". Both have groups of people angry about songs that were most likely chosen not because of their lyrics but because of their 'sound'.

1.I think the difference is while hymns about god are completely one sided and send the message god definitely exists, Imagine is only that, imagining that they don't exist. The song barely portrays christianity negatively. If someone told me to imagine God is real it wouldn't offend me, I have an imagination, it would be pretty easy for me, then afterwards I could go back to my beliefs.

Macbeth wrote:

Aside from that, it's pretty funny some of the "rah rah religion is bad" crowd hates Christianity but largely defends a huge amount of Christian moral points. But that's another issue.

2.I think you'll find that "a huge amount of Christian moral points" are present in many religions. And not being religions doens't mean you can't have morals.

1.Imagine there's no heaven
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger

The way the song is formatted is to imply negativity to the object mentioned after "imagine no". His bone to pick with religion was, among several things mind you, that people were disregarding their time here for the time hereafter hence why he thought people should go about "living for today". The same way the countries make people kill each other and how possessions make people greedy. Secondly about going back to your beliefs; we're dealing with a child here, unlike us they don't know any better.

2. Ugh, if you look at how society was structured and the morality of the religions that came before Christianity, elsewhere and in Europe you would notice how Christianity is something else altogether. Before Christianity things like 'poor people' and 'the weak' were looked down upon as nothing. In Rome and Greece, among other places, strength, courage, pride, wealth and power were held in extremely high regard. Then comes Christianity and things like modesty, meekness, chastity, forgiveness, charity becomes the prevalent morality throughout Europe and eventually infects it's way into other religions. 

What most atheist don't realize is that they are working mostly on a Christianity moral philosophy while at the same time bitching about Christianity.

Of course you don't need religion to be moral, morals are just positions on issues that govern life and normality. You can have a position on anything with or without being religious.