Teacher arrested for Teddy Bear name

[Motorik]

This plus the Che avatar, and I'm done.

 

So much for a discussion on the subject.

[caliber66]

Really

[bobbob1313]

So much for a discussion on the subject.

 

Well, my grandfather was almost murdered by Che (he had to leave the country essentially, in a box, to escape being killed), so yeah, it's a touchy subject. I'm not a fan of all of the Che love. He was a pretty terrible person.

 

And correct me if I"m wrong, but you seemed to be justifying Mao and Stalin's murder of millions of civilians because they were "refusing to adapt to a more enlightened lifestyle". Sorry if I can't bring myself to have any sort of intelligent discussion with you after that.

[EL the Famous]

I don't think it's a stretch at all. And I dont see the relevance of the fact that people who aren't religious kill people. My point was never about religious vs. non-religioous folks in general. It was about fanatics. The very very small percentage of religious folks who are fanatics.

 

Fanatical muslims kill others in the name of their religion. TDW may be annoying. But religious fanatics are not annoying. They are dangerous. There's a big difference.

 

fanatacists of any sort can be both annoying and/or dangerous. all religious fanatics are not dangerous...all non-religious fanatics are not dangerous.

 

if a muslim kills someone in their name of their religion versus someone killing another person in the name of nothing, does it make the murder any more horrible? if someone is screaming at you that your lack of belief in god makes you a bad person versus someone is screaming at you that your belief in god makes you a bad person, does it make the act any more annoying? it's really not apples and oranges at all.

 

jnick, are you saying that a large part of a person's being is not comprised of their thoughts and feelings on a particular subject and when disrespecting those thoughts and feelings, you are, in turn, disrespecting them? i know you are big on science, but w/out any thought or feeling we'd just be a big clump of skin, tissue and bone walking around aimlessly.

 

countless number of people have personal experiences where some occurence has happened...experiences that could not be explained by testable, empirical means...that they have either witnessed God's tangible existence or his actions. to them, that's proof enough...you can call those folks any sort of name you want, but how can you challenge they didn't see what they say they did? i realize that isn't your definition of founded, but it's not your place to have the universal context.

 

what other questions haven't i answered?!

[Good Old Neon]

I personally think fanaticism of any sort is unhealthy, and annoying, at best. I don't see how anyone can be so 100% about their beliefs, either for or against religion.

 

I mistrust anyone who lives any part of their life without doubt. The world is not black and white.

 

My life is filled with doubt, and I am willing to question every cherished belief I may have. If say tomorrow, someone released the results of a study that proved evolution untrue, with real demonstrable, repeatable scientific facts to back it up, I would change my mind.

 

It is religion that paints the world in black and white, right and wrong, good or bad.

 

His point was you refuse to remove someone's beliefs from their person when you don't know them (i.e. all Christians, muslims, are fanatics who are dangerous and stupid), but if you do, you are willing to. That is called being a hypocrit.

 

But, I never said that. I have repeatedly stated that I not find ALL religious folks dangerous.

[bobbob1313]

My life is filled with doubt, and I am willing to question every cherished belief I may have. If say tomorrow, someone released the results of a study that proved evolution untrue, with real demonstrable, repeatable scientific facts to back it up, I would change my mind.

 

It is religion that paints the world in black and white, right and wrong, good or bad.

 

 

 

But, I never said that. I have repeatedly stated that I not find ALL religious folks dangerous.

 

Then we must all be misinterpreting your posts.

 

You seem to have no doubt on the existence of god, viability of science, existence of evolution, etc. That sounds to me like a black and white world view.

[Saint Genevieve]

Yes, they were.

 

They were killed due to a huge political/economical/cultural shift and their refusal to adapt to a more enlightened way of life. They hung on to the old ways; the old outdated religious beliefs were just a small part.

 

Just like the Native Americans! Those silly Injuns had it coming.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, my grandfather was almost murdered by Che (he had to leave the country essentially, in a box, to escape being killed), so yeah, it's a touchy subject. I'm not a fan of all of the Che love. He was a pretty terrible person.

 

And correct me if I"m wrong, but you seemed to be justifying Mao and Stalin's murder of millions of civilians because they were "refusing to adapt to a more enlightened lifestyle". Sorry if I can't bring myself to have any sort of intelligent discussion with you after that.

 

 

I think he was simply attempting to explain why the old guard was executed, not that he agreed with it.

 

Wait, did you just allow a personal experience into the discussion?

 

Hypocrite.

[EL the Famous]

It is religion that paints the world in black and white, right and wrong, good or bad.

 

c'mon now. it's certain people, some religious and some not, that paint the world in black and white, right and wrong, good or bad. pinning that on the entire concept of religion? please.

[Sky God]

[EL the Famous]

I think he was simply attempting to explain why the old guard was executed, not that he agreed with it.

 

'exception to the rule'?

[bobbob1313]

I think he was simply attempting to explain why the old guard was executed, not that he agreed with it.

 

Wait, did you just allow a personal experience into the discussion?

 

Hypocrite.

 

You got me. It's totally the same thing.

[ZenLunatic]

Seems like you guys are getting into discussing semantics more than ideas.

[MattZ]

if a muslim kills someone in their name of their religion versus someone killing another person in the name of nothing, does it make the murder any more horrible?

 

Interesting question. I'd say yes, I guess. But I would substitute [insert religion] for muslim above. And the reason it is worse is that, for fanatics, religion has a way of justifying it or rationalizing it or cleansing it. Something that should never happen for something as horrible as murder.

 

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about fanatics here. You want to tell me that religious fanatics who kill in the name of their religion are nutjobs no different that the nutjob who kills someone because he is simply a nutjob? Ok, I see your point. But there aren't groups of other nutjobs organizing and banding together to continue killing in the name of their nutjobness. And the organizing is the dangerous and scary part of it.

[Good Old Neon]

You got me. It's totally the same thing.

 

 

Oh, I forgot, of course it

[bobbob1313]

Oh, I forgot, of course it

[Motorik]

Just like the Native Americans! Those silly Injuns had it coming.

 

Wrong, the Native Americans were displaced by an invader. If after a thousand years, the Lakota nation decided to have a wholesale change in socio,economic, political and religious systems you could do a comparison.

[Good Old Neon]

No, I agree it is the same thing.

 

I also think it's just adorable how you pounced on that.

 

Also, it probably isn't the same thing, since I've never really made any opinion known on the board about Che. Now, if I had been pro-Che all the time and then all of a sudden, when someone said "Being pro-Che is like totally ghey" and then I said "no, no, it's cool. I can be pro-Che because my grandfather was almost killed by him and I still love him" then it would be the same thing.

 

I pounced on it because you have a habit of singling me out for these sorts of infractions while totally ignoring your own, or those made by others who you tend to agree with

[EL the Famous]

But there aren't groups of other nutjobs organizing and banding together to continue killing in the name of their nutjobness. And the organizing is the dangerous and scary part of it.

 

thousands of white supremecists, militia group members, organized crime families, etc. would probably disagree. is it the organizational aspect versus the belief itself that you take issue with? while innocent death on any count is horrible, i find killing someone w/out any basis of reason for doing so just as, if not more, frightening.

 

does an organized religious group who saves lives via missionary work have any less of a positive end result than those who save similar lives under no religious belief or context? save a life, take a life, etc.

[bobbob1313]

I pounced on it because you have a habit of singling me out for these sorts of infractions while totally ignoring your own, or those made by others who you tend to agree with – and yes, that does make you a hypocrite.

 

I agree it is probably hypocritical, but I also think it's probably different.

[Pooh Bear]

this would be a great time for a hunny break

[EL the Famous]

i know i'm a glutton for punishment, but i have to ask again...jnick, do you undertsand the difference between disrespect and disagree?

[Good Old Neon]

i know i'm a glutton for punishment, but i have to ask again...jnick, do you undertsand the difference between disrespect and disagree?

 

Please, don

[bobbob1313]

[caliber66]

Please, don