Hyroglyphx responds to me:
quote:
Clearly you're not understanding the point of the exercise.
On the contrary. I understand it perfectly. That's why I'm pointing out that it's nonsense. You're trying to play a semantic game, hoping that we won't notice that your substitution won't play out. That is, you're using emotionally charged terms in an attempt to invoke guilt in those who advocated the original argument. In short, you're trying to change the subject. Suddenly, we're talking about racism rather than the original topic. Since it is next to impossible to defend against a charge of racism, you get to claim victory.
There are so many logical errors in your tactics that it's hard to know where to begin. Changing the subject, certainly, followed by poisoning the well and some combination of red herring and guilt by association.
Race and dogma are not interchangeable. Therefore, your substitution of the former into a discussion of the latter fails on the most casual of inspections.
quote:
I'm illustrating how if someone attacks religion it is socially acceptable, but is taboo for most anything else.
Incorrect. You are confusing a mental trait with a physical one. By your logic, we should be concerned that we can "attack" any cognitive structure such as the idea that we should drive on the right side of the road as opposed to the left while doing so for other subjects is "taboo."
Religion is an idea.
Race is not.
quote:
I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't reserve the right to say it, I'm just pointing out that his methodology is a bit severe.
And we're just saying that no, it isn't. The issue is that people are deeply emotionally invested in their religious philosophy and thus to hear anybody contradict it on a fundamental level can be a very personal matter and will be declared an "attack."
quote:
Well, if you look at something like what Jesus taught I doubt many people can reasonably find fault in it.
Violence, arrogance, holier-than-thou attitude...there's plenty to find fault in. The man cursed a fig tree to wither and die for having the audacity to not be bearing fruit out of season.
quote:
So, no, I don't think someone belonging to a certain religion necessarily has to behave like a "bad apple" because it is inherently flawed.
Huh? What does this have to do with anything? As the very book Christians claim to follow says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." I fully understand that people are not perfect, but there is a difference between being fallible, understanding that imperfection, and being sorry (on the one hand) and being unrepentant.
quote:
but not so much that I wear a blindfold so that I can't see that some very positive things come from it.
And Dawkins respects that, too. However, such positive things can and do come from other methods without all the other baggage that comes along. There were throngs of people rallying in support of Gotti, but any good he did doesn't mitigate the evil.
quote:
It's a good thing you're nothing like those hate mongering and sanctimonious Christians, Rrhain.
Nice try, but physician, heal thyself. I have never put myself forward as a nice person. But to run to genocide as the best analogy for your argument shows not only that you don't understand the Holocaust but even more importantly, you don't understand your own argument.
quote:
Clearly religion makes them behave that way, and as we ALL can see, your irreligion has served you so well in not behaving like them.
Who said I didn't believe in god? I know I certainly haven't. I take great pains not to mention my opinions regarding the existence or not of supernatural beings precisely for this reason: I don't want people reacting to their preconceived notions of how someone who believes/doesn't believe thinks and acts.
Do you have a response based upon what I actually said and not what the voices in your head have whispered?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
