Religion-Bashing

[karlhenning]

Could we please just have one centralized "I spit on religion, I despise religious people, ridicule of people of faith is necessary" thread?

Do we need a new thread for every momentary need on the part of a neighbor to spew venom?

[Dr. Dread]

This isn't even a poll. 

[karlhenning]

I just want to know people's opinions 

[Dr. Dread]

I spit on nothing! Take that!

[Dr. Dread]

Lucky this dude doesn't post here.

[ChamberNut]

Ahh Karl, I was hoping for a poll voting option for MN Dave. 

[Dr. Dread]

 

[Josquin des Prez]

I spit on theeeeeee

[Haffner]

I spit on theeeeeee

COOL!

[Elgarian]

It would have been nice to be able to vote though. Like, are you for or against spitting?

Me, I'm against spitting.

I spit on spitting.

Oh.

[Diletante]

You want to spit on Jesus? Spit upwards and see what happens. 

[Joe Barron]

This is all my fault ...

[drogulus]

     I'm going to start a "One Centralized Thread" thread. No Satan-bashing allowed. Only discussion of thread centralization issues will be permitted.

     I sympathize with Karl on this, though not for reasons of agreement about insults. Having all these threads is confusing and they tend to bleed into each other and fragment the useful discussion. It's just harder to follow a discussion that wanders like this, and I've found myself inadvertently replying to a post in one thread with a post in another, no doubt to the consternation of the 3 or 4 readers who actually care. I don't see any easy solution to this, since I think the reason there are so many of these is that people like to do restarts when things get stalled on an uninteresting point. I don't start threads often and they're not about religion when I do, so I'm just taking things as they come.

     By the way, posts about religion that are opposed to it should not be assumed to be venomous. That needs to be demonstrated, as does the relevance of that to the larger discussion. Have you ever seen the reaction of a group of scientists to a paper they disagree with? Venomous covers it nicely, no quarter is asked or given. That's good, since ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position. One also might consider why quarter, that is a fictitious "respect", should be granted to any class of ideas, and why believers plead for it. I sure wouldn't beg for mercy for my ideas. Of course they can stand on their own, and that might have something to do with my indifference to insults to them. Instead, I reply substantively when there is something substantive to reply to.

      "Please don't insult my godlet, he's feeling poorly just now"

      "Well, since you put it like that..."

      No, we won't do that.

[Dr. Dread]

I just like to start threads. 

[david johnson]

'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'

simply inseperable?  that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.

dj

[Joe Barron]

'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'

simply inseperable?  that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.

dj

Well, I tried to be respectful, but apparently it was not seen that way. 

[Dr. Dread]

I think Karl's just being funny. You aren't the cause of this, Joe.

[Scarpia]

I find this inconsistent.  The entire point of "faith" is believing something despite the fact that there is not evidence to support it.  Why would a person of "faith" object to the fact of the lack of evidence being discussed?  I find the Easter Bunny to be one of the more plausible tenets of the Christian religion.  What basis does anyone have for objecting to this statement.

[drogulus]

'ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position'

simply inseperable?  that betrays the weakness of the ridiculer.

dj

    Not so, I'm afraid. Pay attention to the arguments. They're almost as much fun as the "insults".

[Joe_Campbell]

Oh. yes. That word definitely requires quotation marks for you, drog.