Subject:
|
Too Froody Zaphod (was Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:00:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
Taking an active stance that religious beliefs have no part in making LUGNET
decisions, is not a neutral stance about how LUGNET feels about those of us
with religious beliefs. After all this decision has all the atheists here
standing up and applauding (and FYI if you aren’t aware - atheism is a form
of religion - the religion of man)...most often found in secular humanist
groups.
|
I can’t say I agree-- by saying that, you’re absolutely forcing LUGNET into a
position of choosing a religion by arguing that something that’s
*unreligious* is a religion in and of itself.
Hence, you could argue that nothing ever was religion-neutral. IBM, The New
York Yankees (read “evil incarnate”), the US goverment, a bottle of Cheez
Whiz: all religious. The Cheez Whiz doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s
atheistic? A puppy doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s atheistic? How
about a newborn baby? A 2-year-old? A 5-year-old? A 38-year-old? How about an
autistic 38-year-old?
The implication Todd made by saying that LUGNET is religion neutral is that
it’s decisions should not be made based on religious merit-- decisions should
be made based on criteria that visibly affect LUGNET. Now, you could argue
that God affects LUGNET, but seeing as how you could also say the same for
Allah, Zeus, or the Almighty Ford Prefect, all with similar visible evidence,
we’re safer just relying on stuff we can visibly see.
|
Oh man, we’re really gonna need a towel.
| |
Will it make community members happy? Some yes, some no. Will it cause people
to leave LUGNET? Possibly, but hopefully not. Does it fit with the LUGNET
plan? Sure. Will it violate any laws? Nope. Is having such a group
detrimental to LUGNET readers? Not if we’ve got skip-filters. Does Zeus
approve? Uh, I dunno! So I’m not gonna try and factor that one in, and
apparently (and thankfully by my book) neither does Todd & co.
DaveE
FUT .debate
|
Don’t Panic! :p
-Alfred
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
