Discussion in 'Religion' started by river, Aug 13, 2013.
The question remains, what constitutes a religion, and why do we need one?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'm talking about the op.
What are you talking about?
Your response to the op.
Please stop evading.
then please restrict your comments to the issue of "Why not make Human Beings above any other philosophy of existence ?" and stop straw manning.
I have NO website etc.
Just trying to get Humanity to believe in themselves , nothing more
Yes, as long as it is _your_ idea of Humanity that people believe in ...
Lol. If you believe that all people are essentially equal, then you, too, are an anti-feminist.
I'll restrict my comments to issues raised in your response.
This is how discussion works.
It is not a strawman, since you raised the generalisation that I have issue with.
If all you want is to offer a response to the OP and restrict others' comments to that same OP rather than any comment you make, then it won't make for much discussion but instead just another comment system, as you might find on YouTube et al.
The issue remains that you argued with a generalisation that, as yet, you have yet to support.
Support it and we can move on.
Retract it and we can move on, albeit with any point you made reliant upon such generalisation in tatters.
Otherwise, with all this effort at evasion, you are merely, yet again, showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
I read the link, and through careful allowance for its bigotry and innuendo was able to figure out what had happened: the Girl Guides had made a new rule - that a proclamation of allegiance to the Christian God could not be coerced out of girl members.
This forbidding of coercion was immediately described by the link as a discrimination against Christian believers.
And that illustrates why a religion less susceptible to fostering such unawareness of self and crippling bad faith might be a good idea. On whether godlessness in itself - are the profound spiritual beliefs of the atheistic Buddhist sects invited? - is necessary or sufficient I suspend judgment. We do need a religion, though - not only to bring order in our approach to the levels of mental being we term "spiritual", but to handle some common societal problems such as Hardin's Tragedy and Prisoner's Dilemma situations.
The unsupported generalisation in your response to the OP, and your unwillingness to address it.
But thanks for confirming your intellectual dishonesty.
as things stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with the OP ... much less responses to it
Evidence for this claim being...what? That I have highlighted an unsupported generalisation in your response to the OP?
Again your evasion shines through.
You could quite easily just support your generalisation, as suggested.
But instead you seek to evade.
As thing stand at the moment you aren't even up to the par with how to conduct discussion honestly.
As things stand at the moment, there can be no discussion, or only a rigged one, if you propose to be both a participant and the judge.
It seems to be this new rule is even more inclusive. It doesn't mean that Christians can't join, or that they can't pray to themselves. I disagree that anyone needs religion, but we might need community, which often comes with religion.
Judge of what? The lack of honesty of intellect displayed by someone?
If a participant is not also to judge that, but to continue despite the evasion of the other and their fallacious comments, then how do you propose a discussion is actually to proceed? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On that we can both agree. Instead of fixating on the possibility of an afterlife,deities,etc we must turn to each other as a species and realize that until we do die( as an individual or as a society) that we need to rely on each other to promote a better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants.
If one party proposes themselves to be The Judge, above the other party, then there can be no discussion.
The only problem is that there is no universally accepted idea as to what that "better life for people alive in the present and for future descendants" is or should be.
And you think that is the case here? That someone raising issue with another's generalisation and constant evasion is being "The Judge, above the other party"?
It's far simpler than that, wynn: when someone doesn't want to discuss something they can evade, avoid, throw up fallacy after fallacy. The discussion ends when one person wants it to, even if the argument continues. And why one person may want it to end... that is for them to answer, but can often be fathomed from the manner of their refusal.
Separate names with a comma.