|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 4/4 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Smelling The Coffee: 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member  Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Some general replies,
CS writes: A Christ Proponent?  I'm reminded of Jonathan Miller's joke;
quote: Straggler writes: Or Superman. Or Dracula. Or Osama Bin Laden. I think you'll find that Superman is a Methodist. Thanks to CS and Straggler for answering ICANT. I fear may have said something intemperate otherwise.
Hooah writes: I have to admit, after some research, I see where ICANT is coming from. I have to admit, after some experience with ICANT, that I see exactly where ICANT is coming from. He is, as he always does, trying to make excuses for Christianity by throwing up a shameless "No True Scotsman" defence.
logicalfallacies.info writes: The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.Example The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has. If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable. Apologies for the lengthy cut'n'paste, but I think one or two around here might benefit from reading that. This is exactly the argument that ICANT and Buz are making. It insulates Christianity and Christians everywhere from any criticism, as they just handwave and say "Ah well, he's not a REAL Christian.".
It is due to christians not being able to properly identify themselves as christians. They, in their own circles, judge one another and determine who is a REAL christian. I think you are absolutely right. I think that it is common (although not universal) for religious believers to think in this way. They are the REAL Christians, others are misguided at best, damned at worst. This kind of thinking plugs in all to easily to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because it is endemic though, doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out these flaws in logic. The intensity of this them-and-us mentality is, in my view, one of the primary differences between religious moderates and extremists. I believe that this kind of thinking is at the roots of most religious violence and factionalism. It is also one of the root causes of the current wave of Islamic terrorism. It is well known that Muslims are not supposed to kill other Muslims. This means that would-be Islamic terrorists must find some way of rationalising the Muslim deaths their actions might cause. How? Simple; the potential victims are not REAL Muslims. So that's OK. After all, if they were good Muslims, they would be on the terrorists' side. They would already be out fighting Jihad, not wallowing in the decadent filth of western society. The Quran only forbids killing REAL Muslims... so... that's all fine. Bombs away! There can be no doubt that Islam is more guilty than most religions in this regard, but the similarities in thinking between religious extremists of all stripes are striking and worrying. Thankfully, most American Christian fundies are more intent on massacring biology textbooks than people. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
We agree on one thing.
Granny, Granny, listen up. All ideologies and aspects of human life have their nutcases. But that's about it.
Citing this one lone incident by this one deranged nutcase is a strawman response to my question and my position. This one incident has now been cited three times in this thread, none having any relevance to the fact that fundamentalist Christians do not pose any significant terrorist threat to the planet as has, in recent history, been the case with secularist/athiestic communism and the fundamentals of Islam/Jihad and violence. Are you actually saying that Tiller's murder was insignificant? Why don't you go and tell his wife that? I'm sure it will be a big comfort to her.
The need to repeat three times for you people to cite this one incident or even a few isolated incidents by nutcases makes my point, that the fundamentals of NT Christianity pose no global threat whatsoever to humanity. Oh, I get it; Tiller's murder never happened! You are losing it mate. You seem to be trying to fall back upon "the fundamentals of NT Christianity" as your saving grace here, as a buzzword that will get you out of this hole. In reality you are simply using the same NTS fallacy in different garb. The killer was a Christian convert, converted by right-wing Christian anti-abortion groups and, on the basis of his new found faith, he went and shot a man dead. Those are all facts Buz.
LOL. The American system of government is a republic as per the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc as per and instituted by the founding fathers whose majority espoused the fundamentals of NT Christianity and the Biblical Ten Commandments. Take comfort in your fantasy world if you like Buz.
LOL again. How does this freedom of speech pose a terroristic threat, any more than the fundamentals set forth in the Koran, the Haddith, the Sunnahs, the Communist Manifesto, quotes from Black Panthers, and in fact, some of the Christophobic hate speach here at EvC? If you were actually bothering to read what I say, you would realise that I never said it did. You asked not for terrorist threats, but "What worries you about extremist fundi Christians?". Now you move the goalposts. Shame on you Buz.
1. Where/what in the Constitution is there a cemented wall between church and state or against religion? Pathetic. If you need the Establishment Clause explaining to you at your age, you really aren't much of an American patriot. Know your Constitution!
Must I again, for the umpteent time repeat the fact that our founders advocated the Bible and Watts Hymnal IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS and instituted church services IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY THE US MARINE BAND? Yes, I think you must. Care to try that again with some backing? I'd be particularly interested to see your evidence for the hymnal claim. Names, dates and places please Buz.
2. Barton, thankfully, is apprising America on precisely and factually what the founders believed, practiced and had in mind/advocated when they established this republic. Here's my challenge to you, Granny. Cite one example of falsified information that Barton has published or proclaimed relative to the founding fathers or relative to the Constitution and explain to us how it has been falsified. Barton is an ideologue, trying to turn public education in to his own indoctrination service. As for your request for Bartonian falsehoods, I will offer this for now; "if they get their way, textbooks will paint slavery as a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one and refer to our economic system as ethical capitalism.". The slavery nonsense should be obvious enough, but the "ethical capitalism" gag is just hilarious. Economics 101; the USA, like almost all nations, is a mixed economy. Barton is either trying to hide the public aspects of US society, or he is simply pig-ignorant. Possibly both.
Need I remind you that all nations in history at one time or another have practiced slavery? Need I remind you that it is the Republican Party whose first president was Abraham and the scores of thousands who died and maimed all, worked for the emcipation and integrating of slaves and blacks? No, you need not, mostly because it's irrelevant. Either you agree with statement "slavery {was} a relic of British colonialism that America struggled to cast off from day one" or you do not. Do you agree with this statement? Or is Barton wrong?
Do you ever assimilate anything said, which empirically refutes your irrational ranting, Granny? This is especially amusing, given your final comment, but we'll get to that in a moment...
Wake up and SMELL THE COFFEE, Granny. Mohammed and his successors all have declared a fatwa of global domination, meaning that all infidels, i.e. non-Muslims must become under Islamic fundamentalistic Shariah law. Barton is right on as always. [/rant] Barton's point here is not entirely spurious; the Quran was used to justify Barbary piracy. However, the overtly politicised tone of descriptions such as "the original war on Islamic terror" are hyperbole and clearly designed as propaganda for current political factions, rather than the neutral academic tone that is expected of textbooks. These are textbooks we're talking about, not a venue for sloganeering. If Barton were to describe the Barbary wars as Islamic terrorism in a political pamphlet or something, i would have no problem with it. In a textbook, one should present the facts and let the reader draw their own political conclusions. to do otherwise is simply indoctrination. Your response also bears a disturbing attitude, one that you often display. You are portraying all Muslims as one giant homogenised monolithic entity, regardless of any difference in view, behaviour or even (bizarrely) time period. This is obviously inane. I have been careful to draw distinction between fundy and moderate Christians. You would do well to apply the same to Muslims.
Your unsupported allegations sounds to me like Christophobic and unsupported hate speach, Oh dear. one moment you're extolling free speech, the next you're accusing me of hate speech. I suggest you go and look up the word "hypocrite".
Granny writes: Or we could go back to Uganda, where the LRA are now on the run, but Christians continue to seek the deaths of anyone of whom they disapprove; Buz writes: Again do you read or think before your post, Granny? Did you bother to refute my previous point that Uganda is engaged in civil war among factions? Particularly in Africa, atrocities are often perpetrated by both sides of a faction conflict. Ha! you really are priceless! Do YOU read before you post Buz? I doubt it. Only a simpleton could possibly imagine that your response had something to do with what I posted. You say "Uganda is engaged in civil war among factions"; I'm talking about the bill to execute homosexuals Buz! Are you actually insane enough to believe that Uganda is at war with homosexuals? Do you imagine that there are gay terror groups hiding out in the mountains? Or did you not actually read my post? Or are you actually so astonishingly dense that you are unable to tell the difference between an armed military faction and ordinary homosexual Ugandans (and their friends and family, who might also face execution if the bill passes)? The proposed bill in Uganda not only stipulates execution for homosexuals, but imprisonment for those who "aid and abet" them, i.e. anyone who fails to betray their homosexual friend or family member to the police, so that they might be executed. This bill was directly inspired by American Christian fundamentalists, who held anti-gay conferences in Uganda. But of course, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would already know that... Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : I overstated the excesses of the Ugandan bill. Fixed now. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Heh!
 The Pink Brigades? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
(1)