 | | Re: Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) And, of course, I had to look further into it and find all the variations on a theme just to argue against myself (see immediately preceeding post on scroll). -->B<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Some quotes from Wikipedia that may be illuminating (or confusing depending on if you can keep track of it all): Some atheists distinguish between two variants: Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the standpoint that there is no reason to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Insert Tab A into...wait, which one's Slot B?
|
|
(...) No. Why would you think so? Most(1) government RFPs state "award will be made to the offer which demonstrates the best overall value to the government considering price, technical merit and past performance." I'd say LM's past performance is (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Definitions vs. Daffynitions (was Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I do too. It might make sense to keep it bookmarked! (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I could say the same: A-gnostic: without knowledge of god(s) A-theist: without belief in god(s) (...) Those are essentially different ways of saying the same thing. Anything that can serve as proof for the one group should serve equally well (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) You summed up what I would have responded with very succinctly, Orion. I agree with you assessment of atheists, and proper definition of agnostics. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Actually you're confusing terms here. Agnostics believe that the existance of God is "inherently unknowable" whereas (most) atheists believe that God's existance is "unproven". There is a relativly small faction of atheists (known as hard (...) (20 years ago, 16-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Halloween vs. the Bible Belt
|
|
(...) I've actually known a few people who fall into that category, and, despite the fact that the Christian church tried to annex Halloween (remember All Saints' Day, the day after Samhain?) and basically failed (especially when compared to the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) ...until it becomes agnosticism, the only true non-religion. The fundamental difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheism, like all religions, makes firm dogmatic claims regarding the existence of a supernatural being and the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Halloween vs. the Bible Belt
|
|
(...) Y'know, sometimes I just shake my head and want to give up. Those that have a problem with Hallowe'en should have a problem with it no matter the day of the week. Sending little Johnny dressed up as 'the devil' on Saturday is okay, but don't (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Halloween vs. the Bible Belt
|
|
I thought "Bah, humbug!" only was used in conjunction with Christmas. :-) (URL) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Doh! Next time, try juxtaposing the three of them apart. Maybe I'll get it, then. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I figured as much, which is why I juxtaposed the three of them together so the full irony would be apparent. Of course, if ya gotta explain a joke.... -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Looks like mollusc has run out. Actually, when I first read your post, I saw "declaimed" as "declammed," so the non-sequitur was borne of a misreading of your sequitur. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Clams got legs! Unfortunately, your disclaimed/declaimed/declammed non-sequitor doesn't. Unless I reply like a fool, in which case....oh no.... -->Bruce<-- clamming up... (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I guess my posts could sometimes be declammed when I've cited too many shellfish. Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Dictionary.com gives a serviceable definition of (URL) religion,> a definition with which I find myself in general agreement. In casual parlance I would pare it down a little further to say that religion entails the worship of and/or positive (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is religion dead in the water?
|
|
(...) It is entirely dependent on approach. I've seen atheists who approach it as a religion, and others that do not. Generally, the more strident and absolutist an atheist is, the more it approaches a religion. The more dispassionate and scientific (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions. (...) Nor does it necessarily mean that it is. (...) No, I didn't miss it, I just wasn't convinced. My take then was that you were arguing by assertion. I'll take this (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Shouldn't that be "declaimed", and not "disclaimed"? On no! Your entire argument now has now been forfeited! Nyahh. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh. ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) What is a religion, if not a "belief system"? Just because atheism is not an organized religion doesn't mean it's not a religion at all. (...) You must have missed my lengthy discussion with Mr. Schuler regarding the fundamental differences (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I did not rip you. I cautioned you against the use of a Straw Man falacy in misapplying the definition of tolerance, but that's a discussion of rhetoric. If you perceived my addressing of your rhetorical shortcomings as a "rip" on you (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) SNIPPED in order to meet post req's (...) SNIP for post req (...) Dave, this discussion is a total joke. You rip me for assuming you're a moral relativist because you don't come out and say you are, and then proceed to use every type of moral (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I don't assume anything about Dave - his own statements show he is a moral relativist. Nobody else here apparently has problems calling things as they see them when it goes against their own positions. I'm no different. And I am just about (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Many people view atheism as a belief system rather than a religion. Your points still stand, nonetheless, but I did want to point it out. I'll go farther, and state that I feel that people who consistently call atheism a religion are, in my (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) He is. But he used to summer in a suburb of Sodom, where all the parents used to enlist his aid as a babysitter whenever they needed to have some alone time. (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Yes, but they preferred the term Sodomian, or occassionally Sodomish. Of course, they're all dead now, so who cares what they preferred? (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) That's true, if viewed in a certain light. Murder is always wrong, but societies define "murder" according to their own sense of morality. Many people would consider executing criminals to be murder. Texans do not. Many people would consider (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) I thought (URL) was the friend to children everywhere. Dave! (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) First of all, let me say thank you to Lenny for his (URL) input>. He is quite correct that it is falacious to caricature the position of one's opponent and then attack that position as if it were the real one. That's the classic (URL) Straw (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
Isn't a Sodomite someone from the ex-town (city?) of Sodom? Near Gomorrah? ;) Tim (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Lee, this is an interesting argument against moral relativism - but I doubt Dave is arguing on behalf of moral relativisim. You have assign this belief to him, and then proceeded to attack that belief, all the while you ignore the discussion (...) (20 years ago, 14-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: It didn't have to be this way....
|
|
(...) The closest I can think of is West Germany, but that might not count due to how short of a time they were under the rule of a despot, and the fact that they were the invading nation, not the invaded. (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question for my Canadian pals
|
|
(...) Part of the problem might be in saying that an uncommon procedure is necessarily less accessible to you. In the US health insurance system, expensive procedures usually come with expensive deductables, so while the line in front of you may be (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, well I certainly can tell by your views you are a moral relativist from your distorted definition of tolerance. There are absolutes in the world. Moral, logical absolutes. There are universal truths that apply to everyone, across all (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Meanwhile, in Another Clark County...
|
|
(URL) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Clark County, Ohio
|
|
(...) Ha! Would be interesting to see how many people from the UK would actually go for Bush... DaveE (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Where do I sign up?
|
|
Let the (URL) fall where they may. Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) I'm not so sure. If the individual citizen enters into and then defaults upon the social contract, then that's not initiation of force--it's enforcement of terms. (...) Now that's interesting. In a true market of options, then a choice to (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Well, perhaps force is too strong, though I'm comfortable with anything the government requires as being forced in that ultimately, if you refuse, the government could escalate to use of force. I agree that the pharmacist's contract may very (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
