Philosophy Now Forum

Is that the best you can offer the discussion?

If it gets past your ego defences and through to your brain and persuades you to communicate rather than vituperate and pontificate, then it's gold, dude.

If it doesn't, then there was never any hope for "the discussion".

Sadly, I predict the latter

[edited by iMod]

I am done with this discussion.

Please explain as you have deleted the reason why "I am done".


"Oh, to be sure. Yes. I see, I see, I see what she means. I will try and

hold my tongue. I must have made myself very disagreeable .....................Yes".

Miss Bates from the novel Emma.


seems rather appropriate for this post. LOL

mickthinks wrote:Is that the best you can offer the discussion?

If it gets past your ego defences and through to your brain and persuades you to communicate rather than vituperate and pontificate, then it's gold, dude.

If it doesn't, then there was never any hope for "the discussion".

Sadly, I predict the latter

I see - so still no content.

reasonvemotion wrote:[edited by iMod]

I am done with this discussion.

Wow - you've earned an edit.

How did you do that?

You know what, I feel rather chuffed. LOL

reasonvemotion wrote:You know what, I feel rather chuffed. LOL

I'm glad you are so pleased with yourself.

It is rather perverse of me.

Have you ever had the honor?

chaz wyman wrote:...but you never give examples.

As I've already said...

The word "religion" refers to the beliefs and activities of literally billions of people over thousands of years in every time and place in human history.

How could anything of this scale possibly be meaningfully described by simplistic judgments such as "good" or "bad" as you are repeatedly attempting to do?

You are willfully, adamantly and emotionally ignoring any evidence which does not support your preferred conclusion. The only thing you care about is being declared right, Right, RIGHT!

That's NOT reason Chaz.

It's ideology.

You have a right to your ideology. You don't have a right to call it reason.

reasonvemotion wrote:It is rather perverse of me.

Have you ever had the honor?

Now what in the hey would a perty clean livin' gal like yaself do so wrong like?

LOL.....Actually with hindsight, I think my rather harsh critique of C.W. would have warranted deletion, over the post that was.

Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.

reasonvemotion wrote:It is rather perverse of me.

Have you ever had the honor?

No, I supposed I've never said something bad enough, despite what you say about me.

Felasco wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:...but you never give examples.

As I've already said...

The word "religion" refers to the beliefs and activities of literally billions of people over thousands of years in every time and place in human history.

And MacDonald's are eaten by the masses. More is not necessarily better.

How could anything of this scale possibly be meaningfully described by simplistic judgments such as "good" or "bad" as you are repeatedly attempting to do?

Oh for fuck's sake. It is YOU that has reduced the discussion to good or bad not me!!!!
I think you are just taking the piss now!
Man's greatest achievements have always been when they have resisted religion

You are willfully, adamantly and emotionally ignoring any evidence which does not support your preferred conclusion. The only thing you care about is being declared right, Right, RIGHT!
.

You have presented ZERO evidence. And made no substantive claims for any benefits of religion.

Well anyway I'm shocked, shocked!

reasonvemotion wrote:LOL.....Actually with hindsight, I think my rather harsh critique of C.W. would have warranted deletion, over the post that was.

Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.

Shocked!