What I find pathetic is that it all comes down to money. I know companies are in business to make money, and that's all well and good, but one the other hand, that's why I work. But I'm willing to spend a little more for products that don't conflict with my ethics as well. Why is it so inconceivable that a company do what's right to support their own industry, even if it might cost a little in the short term? If these anti-American politicians who can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually look at the data objectively (which clearly shows that gun control laws only make life better for criminals), why do business with these idiots at all? Why not spend a few bucks and take your business where it's appreciated? I've been screwed over by self-righteous, corrupt Nazi-esk LEOs and I just simply refuse to do business in their county. As a matter of fact, I moved to a different state (mainly because I don't have enough money to fight them, or we'd be in court right now). How much is it going to cost these companies to fight the anti-American tyranny that there legislators are are trying to force down their throats? I think they should leave those states and in the process make it publicly clear who the real job-killers are and see how long those people last in office.
Well, you go your way, I'll go mine. And I hope we can crush them in the middle! :-)
Oh, I'm definitely not saying that we shouldn't be passionate. And I agree that it's mandatory to call them on their lies, absolutely! That's the point of debating in the first place.
My point is merely that it is best to stay on topic and not get dragged into an emotional, slandering, name-calling situation. There are times when I want to just say "OMG, you are a blathering idiot!!!" But that doesn't help at all. It might make me feel better, but it gives the impression to the "audience" that I am just as irrational as the religiot. But if I passionately stick with the rational argument, not tolerating the religiot to bring up irrational talking points, or allowing him to derail the conversation off into an emotion-based playing field, that is when I lose the argument.
And, of course, people relying on themselves don't, in any way, 'require' religion. I think the best of both worlds is little need for government AND NO NEED for religion, with people caring for each other, just because it's the right thing to do.
I know, I know, keep dreaming. But wouldn't it be a wonderful world.... :)
Personally, I think one of the most important things that an Atheist debater can strive for is to be non-emotional. Every religious argument I've ever heard is based strictly on emotions. When you get into an emotional debate with a religiot, you are playing in his/her playground and, as soon as you bring emotions into it, you have lost the debate.
It helps to keep in mind that you will never "turn" the religiot during the conversation. However, when you debate online, you are really presenting your arguments to the audience, not the other debater. The person who name-calls and becomes sarcastic and irrational will be the person that looks bad to all the other people reading the debate. If you remain rational and polite, you will score SO many more points than the religiot who will certainly get pissed and start calling you a "god-hater" or just saying that your arguments are stupid because they just are.
If we go into a debate with a calm, rational voice and just simply present the evidence, we will win many more people over to our side and having the religiots drive those people into the light is just frosting on the cake. :)
YOU are close to having enough "facts" to determine that I am stupid? Really? I have in no way said or tried to imply that your past is in any way a logical crutch. I'm saying your emotions are your logical crutch. Case in point being that I have agreed with everything you've said, and yet you are trying to explain to me how blatantly wrong I am. And I have no idea what you mean by "appeal to authority". What authority are you talking about? The only 2 opinions that I have expressed are that a) all religions are delusional and b) we should all try and respect each other as long as we stay within a common moral boundary. I have never said I dismiss your experience in the slightest. I think it is YOU that feels the need to dismiss MY experiences and insist that my opinions are completely irrelevant (even though they AGREE with yours). I would certainly hope that you stick to your own counsel regarding islam. You obviously know a LOT more about it than I do. Again, I have not said anything to counter that. You might want to look up a couple of definitions. First: "dogma". According to the Princeton online dictionary, it means "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof". As you might notice, NOTHING I have said is based on religion. Second: AGREEMENT. My observation about your obvious anger stands. I have agreed with you on just about every single point you've made, and yet you are explaining to me how narrow minded and stupid I am.
I have never said or even implied that you are "uncivilized". Another thing you might want to look up is the term "civilized CONVERSATION". Meaning, taking the other person at what they say and not bloating it out of proportion and reading unintended meaning into it based on emotions.
As to the religion, I'd love to hear your "facts" that show that judaism didn't spawn xianity and islam. As far as my research has shown, each and every one are abrahamic religions and judaism pre-dates the other two. If I'm incorrect on that, please let me know what sources have differing facts and I'd be happy to research it.
But I certainly do abandon hope of having any kind of rational conversation with you. You obviously want to take everything I say in the worst possible context and ignore me saying I AGREE! I AGREE! So, based on that, I will refrain from responding to any more of your posts. My only suggestion to you is that you might want to get some anger management counseling and perhaps switch to decaf.
Preachy? Hmm, never been called THAT before. LOL I just wanted to say that I completely agree with you about the respect thing. I was using a general statement about tolerance of different cultures in general. When a culture accepts honor killings, murder (not just homosexuals, but anyone they see as "unclean"), rape (of anyone, not just boys, but girls and women, too), preaches jihad, etc., it is definitely not a healthy culture and deserves no one's respect. You are absolutely correct. I do disagree with you about xian's tolerance with other religions, though. I do acknowledge that islam and xianity have had that whole "sibling rivalry" thing going on. The cultures and societies that support islam are much more militant than the cultures where hinduism and buddhism are supported. But xians tend to consider any religion that isn't yahwah-based (hindu, buddhists, etc) as heathenistic and not to be trusted. The only reason Jews are semi-accepted is that it is more of a "parent" religion as opposed to islam's "sibling" status. Also, those other religions don't fight xianity as much as islam does, so it's understandable why there is such a rivalry between them. It's awfully hard to fight against buddhism, when they actually practice what they preach as far as non-violence, but, believe me, xians manage to figure out a way to do it.
But it sounds like you've made up your mind that anyone who has never been in your shoes (and unfortunately, you seem to just assume that no one else ever has) is just too stupid to "get it" and you are angry enough with the world to not even try to accept someone else trying to have a civilized conversation about the situation, so I'll just leave it at that. Good luck with your life, I hope you find contentment in your travels.
Um, are you saying that I can't detest racism because I haven't been abused because of it? Are you saying I'm an asshole because I condemn the people who did that to you because they didn't beat me up as well? Dude, there are those of us that ARE ON YOUR SIDE. It appears to me that we agree with each other. Just to let you know, if we had been in school together, as white as I am, we probably would have gotten the shit kicked out of us side-by-side, because I would have been standing next to you, not opposed to you. I was raised in eastern Oregon where racism runs rampant and believe me, I was on the wrong (read: losing, NOT incorrect) side of that issue several times. I was raised in an environment where the terms "towel-head" and "nigger" were thrown around as freely as beacon and eggs. But I escaped that bigotry and hatred and joined the Marines because I wanted to be someplace that stands for equality and honor (didn't find it, but it was closer than where I was raised).
As for this issue, I have to say I think I see it very clearly. The issue is religion. You condemn islam, I condemn xianity. And that is the issue with the mosque. Two ridiculous delusional superstitions trying to fight over a piece of dirt. I think the majority of the fight against putting the mosque close to ground zero is just an excuse by xians to try to express power over another religion. I have no idea if the attempt to put a mosque there is an attempt to snub their noses at the situation or not, but I agree with Obama that it doesn't seem like a good idea, unless they specifically wanted to stir up a hornet's nest. Regardless, it's all about racism, bigotry, and religion. And it seems to me that you and I are in complete agreement that all three should be condemned.
Keep the faith, brother. There ARE those of us out there that specifically choose NOT to see color, nationality as evil, but just different cultures that should be respected. Notice that I put my full name on my posts, because I want people to see that I am not ashamed of standing up against the kind of shit that you had to go through growing up.
UPDATE: Woops, on other sites I use my name, on this one I created a handle. But just to make my point: My name is Keith Pinster and I live in Hillsboro, Oregon and I invite anyone who thinks I am not bigoted enough to come by and "teach me a lesson" anytime you want.
Wow, over reacting much? My argument isn't an argument? I come off as a complete ass for saying that we should have tolerance and shouldn't condemn a whole social group for the acts of a handful of people? Are you saying we SHOULD condemn every muslim, even the peaceful ones, for the acts of a few people? If you are then that, my friend, IS the definition of bigotry. If you are not, then my comments obviously weren't directed toward you. I didn't think you were saying that, but if you are, then I guess we do have a disagreement. I wasn't trying to condemn you, or even really directing my comments toward you specifically. I was just stating my opinion about the whole mess. Am I not allowed to have an opinion? Are you trying to infringe on my 1st amendment right??? (That was a joke, you are supposed to snicker at that comment. :)
I don't have a problem with, and actually like the idea of openly discussing things like the mosque. And, if you don't mind, I would like to focus on that for just a sec, since you brought it up. My biggest problem with the protest of the mosque is that it is basically the same as saying "We shouldn't allow any Russians to live too close to ground zero. Why? Because the people that flew those planes into the Twin Towers were from Asia and Russia is in Asia, of course!" Okay, I hear people saying "That's just ridiculous!" But is it? Aren't we condemning an entire social group for the acts of a handful of people? Or, better yet, how about this one: "We shouldn't ever allow a church to be built close to ground zero! Why? Because the people that flew the planes into the TT were RELIGIOUS! And more to the point, they followed an ABRAHAMIC religion!!!" If you want to make distinctions between xianity and muslims, why not make distinctions between muslims as a whole and the terrorists? Don't you just love how bigotry can be turned right back on itself? :)