Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your interpretation is because you are working off you own biased frame of reference.
I am on your side on this argument simply because of this comment.
We have the extremists on each side that are pretty much immoveable and unfortunately that seems to be a huge component of the spectrum these days.
Someone like Learn Me may not be an extremist but ends up believing that a position either to the right or left of their own is "wrong". So while this position is more respectable than the knee jerk extremist it also doesn't allow for much dialogue regarding solving problems.
It is clear that right wing thinking puts a premium on the individual and left wing thinking puts a the premium on the group. It's been that way since we started walking on two feet and will always be that way.
Isaiah 1:18 says "Come, let us reason together". Holding rigid positions certainly isn't conducive to following that verse in the Bible.
Even the Bible has verses that support both positions. Jesus demonstrated and spoke in both favor of both positions at one time or another.
But you're not saying both sides are based on facts, are you? One side's view has been debunked, but not the other, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I noted: "It doesn't matter if it is political, social, Religious, or any other position...the sensible, logical, and reasonable Moderates/Independents are flanked on each side by venom spitting radicals/extremists."
My view of it is simplistic...because it is simplistic.
I noted: "It doesn't matter if it is political, social, Religious, or any other position...the sensible, logical, and reasonable Moderates/Independents are flanked on each side by venom spitting radicals/extremists."
My view of it is simplistic...because it is simplistic.
There are the 1/3 in the Middle...flanked by 1/3 on each side that feel the world would be better off if the other wasn't part of it.
Each of those sides claim the view of the other side is debunked...and theirs is fully true & virtuous.
Only those in the middle that are not compromised by deranged bias-fueled emotional headtrips are able to see that both far-end views are bogus. Both side of each far-end has no problem, in fact it's standard, to put forth false accusations about the other.
Of course...they both take issue with the middle pointing out that neither one of them are right-in-the-head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heron31
No, they don't. Your "both sides" view is called false equivalence, is hugely misguided, and is detrimental to those fighting against the destruction of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You are obviously EXACTLY the kind of far-end type person I refer to.
As someone that is Independent and sits in the middle...I am able to view things without the fog of deranged bias.
The Far Left says the Right is "destroying the Country"...the Far Right says the Left is "destroying the Country".
Those in The Center see that they both are detrimental to societal well being...that they are equivalent & just the opposite side of the same irrational coin.
This is the same in every aspect of the global community. The Radical Religious Extremists VS The Militant Atheists for example.
Once one puts forth the position that, "The People on the Other Side are Destroying the Country", you know you are dealing with someone suffering from Derangement Syndrome and is unable to make a impartial assessment.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of these people...and the more you entreat them to be cool & point out the bias & hate, the deeper they dig in their heels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heron31
You neglected to answer the question.
I answered it...in detail.
But here...let me simply if for ya: Those on the outer ends of each side are BOTH prime for viewing and relating things in a way that does not comport with how it really is.
Both outer sides are tainted...the middle is the dwelling of logic, reason, and how things actually were/are.
Especially those overcome with TDS or BDS or latent ODS (unfortunately all too common affictions)...and are claiming they were/are "destroying the Country". Once somebody starts with that psychotic spew...you know they are too gone-in-the-head with bias to assess things realistically.
If you have nothing to say relevant to Religion or Spirituality, don't feel compelled to post. The next person to mention politician, directly or indirectly, even by using such Acronyms as have been used recently, can expect to receive an infraction.
If you have nothing to say relevant to Religion or Spirituality, don't feel compelled to post. The next person to mention politician, directly or indirectly, even by using such Acronyms as have been used recently, can expect to receive an infraction.
Fair enough.
Its difficult to discuss truth and lies without referring to present day propaganda which in general has been in the field of politics.
I'm trying to think of concrete examples where religion 'lies' to it's followers. I can think of a few, but they are more a bending of reality and imagination than lies.
Religious text and dogma tends to be more in the realm of 'storytelling' than 'lies'. I think most people would regard stories and lies completely differently.
Perhaps the actual question is, what is the difference between fact and fiction? But that would be another thread.
Your interpretation is because you are working off you own biased frame of reference.
No, I am working from the fact that you and others here call people who simply post on the internet militant atheists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It is reasonable to compare those that would persecute/kill others based upon the Religion they follow, with those that would persecute/kill others because they follow a Religion.
Correct. But that is not what you are doing, you are doing the Motte and Bailey fallacy, changing the definition of 'militant atheist' when you can not defend your position, only to repeat your bad argument later as if it has not been refuted.
And who are these militant atheists? Do they even exist? Did they ever exist? You can not use Stalin and Mao because they did not kill because they were atheists, as I have explained before. They killed because they were power mad dictators. That is why the religious were only 0.5% of their victims.
0.5%.
If you want to pretend they killed because they were atheists, then you must argue they were also militant pacifists because they killed people in the military, and militant art critics because they killed actors, poets and painters.
So once again, who are these many militant atheist who want to kill people simply because they believe? There can not be many, but you had to include them because you want to bash atheists while once again implicitly supporting religious terrorism and creationism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You interpreted "Militant Atheists" with "Atheists posting on the internet"....and went full into a "Godwin's Law" tirade!
No, I recognized your dishonest use of the Motte and Bailey fallacy as your usual ad hominem. And pointing out a relevant fact is a tirade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You hold the current title for "The Most Amusing Post of the Day"...so far, anyway.
You hold the title of the most dishonest boring person on the internet. But keep playing your game, you make the religious sound both dishonest and stupid. It is as if you are attacking and bashing them from within.
I am on your side on this argument simply because of this comment.
We have the extremists on each side that are pretty much immoveable and unfortunately that seems to be a huge component of the spectrum these days.
Someone like Learn Me may not be an extremist but ends up believing that a position either to the right or left of their own is "wrong". So while this position is more respectable than the knee jerk extremist it also doesn't allow for much dialogue regarding solving problems.
It is clear that right wing thinking puts a premium on the individual and left wing thinking puts a the premium on the group. It's been that way since we started walking on two feet and will always be that way.
Isaiah 1:18 says "Come, let us reason together". Holding rigid positions certainly isn't conducive to following that verse in the Bible.
Even the Bible has verses that support both positions. Jesus demonstrated and spoke in both favor of both positions at one time or another.
Except that Gldn is claiming to be independent, so are you saying his position doesn't allow for much dialogue regarding solving problems either?
I'm just a bit unclear on what you are getting at with regards to LM?
In any case, all of us are biased in one way or another, regardless any thinking about how objective we may be. It's an inevitable consequence of where and how we were raised, our environment, the culture we live in and everything we are exposed to. Nobody comes to be who they are independently.
I am on your side on this argument simply because of this comment.
We have the extremists on each side that are pretty much immoveable and unfortunately that seems to be a huge component of the spectrum these days.
Someone like Learn Me may not be an extremist but ends up believing that a position either to the right or left of their own is "wrong". So while this position is more respectable than the knee jerk extremist it also doesn't allow for much dialogue regarding solving problems.
This does not follow. One can hold an extreme position, but change that position when new evidence is presented. If one side does not have any credible arguments to use in a dialogue, then the one holding the extreme position is justified in maintaining their position.
The idea that those holding an extreme position are deluded and deranged people on an emotional, bias fueled head trip is also a non sequitur, but a convenient way for those with no evidence to dismiss those who actually do.
After all, either Oberst Günther von Gatow murdered Frau Weiß in the music room with a pistol, or he did not, and you can come to the extreme conclusion rationally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
