Atheists....

XXdarkclarityXX, there are many people here who do not use English as their first language so please do not flame others for their spelling and/or grammatical errors.

You can still take someone seriously and be respectful of their opinion/belief without resorting to ad hominem.

Logos,

Yes, my attempt in debasing falling moon's argument did employ ad hominem tactics. However, the inability to use English effectively begs the question: Why use it to make an argument if you're not proficient with it? I have no problem with English being a second langauge, but if you do not have the proper command of it to use it effectively then I do have a problem with its use for rhetorical purposes. Imagine you are a writer and a painter, but you are much better at painting then in writing. Would it make any sense for you to write rather than paint? No, because you are much better at painting. The same goes for communicating thoughts and ideas through language: the more effective tactic should be used to convey the message. In this case, it would be the first language. Now, since this forum requires posts to be in English, it might be more beneficial to those who cannot sufficiently utilize English to find a place where they may successfully and freely state their thoughts in their native language.

Am I elitist? No. Am I anti-immigration? No. Then what am I? I'm utilitarian, and someone who cannot make an argument with correct structure, word usage, spelling, and grammar is wasting the time of the other members here by obstructing the meaning of what they have written with blaringly obvious literary deficiencies. Logos, while I apologize for any disrespect which may have been communicated between my sentiments and any other member of this forum, I stand by my position. If you cannot or do not formulate a coherent argument, flaming is warranted due to the simple fact that it wastes time and exhibits profound laziness. If you don't know English, learn before posting. If you don't feel like learning or don't learn enough, then don't post. On that note I say good night.

Look, if you choose to enter into discussion or debate here please try to be respectful of other people in how you say things.

There are a lot of people here learning English, they use these very forums as practice. There may be some here with vision impairment, who use voice recognition software in order to communicate and the text isn't always perfect. There are myriad other reasons why someone might not post to your satisfaction but we can't all be happy with or like what others say, but you can still be "nice" in how you say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Just to be clear on Catholic doctrine of non-Catholics and going to heaven, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the official position of teaching by the Roman Catholic church, states the following:
(Paragraph 847)
So, you do not have to be Roman Catholic or even Christian under Roman Catholic teaching to get into heaven. What the criteria is, as I read it, is to do God's will, which I believe to mean, love thy neighbor and love God. Not too dificult, even if you don't know about Christianity.

---

Having converted to Catholicism so that I am a Messianic Jew I know that Virgil says about the Catechism is true, I have read it. There is a scripture that says very plainly which Peter the first vicar of the Church after the resurrection of Christ Jesus said following a council: "For I perceive that God is not partial, but the man from every nation that does the will of God is acceptable to Him."
There is another scripture that says" the whole obligation of man is to get to know God."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX

Yes, my attempt in debasing falling moon's argument did employ ad hominem tactics. However, the inability to use English effectively begs the question: Why use it to make an argument if you're not proficient with it? I have no problem with English being a second langauge, but if you do not have the proper command of it to use it effectively then I do have a problem with its use for rhetorical purposes. Imagine you are a writer and a painter, but you are much better at painting then in writing. Would it make any sense for you to write rather than paint? No, because you are much better at painting. The same goes for communicating thoughts and ideas through language: the more effective tactic should be used to convey the message. In this case, it would be the first language. Now, since this forum requires posts to be in English, it might be more beneficial to those who cannot sufficiently utilize English to find a place where they may successfully and freely state their thoughts in their native language.

Am I elitist? No. Am I anti-immigration? No. Then what am I? I'm utilitarian, and someone who cannot make an argument with correct structure, word usage, spelling, and grammar is wasting the time of the other members here by obstructing the meaning of what they have written with blaringly obvious literary deficiencies. Logos, while I apologize for any disrespect which may have been communicated between my sentiments and any other member of this forum, I stand by my position. If you cannot or do not formulate a coherent argument, flaming is warranted due to the simple fact that it wastes time and exhibits profound laziness. If you don't know English, learn before posting. If you don't feel like learning or don't learn enough, then don't post. On that note I say good night.

---

¿Cómo tú sientes si una persona te diga que tú no puedes dar tu opinion?

How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't express your opinion? If someone said that, no matter how you felt on the subject, you couldn't tell people how you felt, could not contribute to a conversation because your language skills were poor and because he did not feel like bothering to try and understand you? Just because someone doesn't speak as well as you do is no reason for you to disregard their input. Nightshade here is dyslexic--would you like her to leave, as well? Or waste her time correcting every little thing, as opposed to wasting yours when you have to take two extra seconds to think about her posts?

Back on the subject--yes, one could derive pleasure from doing something bad, but there's also the potential for guilt. Strength of conscience is the benchmark, the little meter on a person's forehead that tells what kind of person they are. And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct.

You are absolutely right M'Lord. the scriptures command us to be peaceable with all, actually considering the other as superior.
As well we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves and we must love ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

¿Cómo tú sientes si una persona te diga que tú no puedes dar tu opinion?

How would you feel if someone told you that you couldn't express your opinion? If someone said that, no matter how you felt on the subject, you couldn't tell people how you felt, could not contribute to a conversation because your language skills were poor and because he did not feel like bothering to try and understand you? Just because someone doesn't speak as well as you do is no reason for you to disregard their input. Nightshade here is dyslexic--would you like her to leave, as well? Or waste her time correcting every little thing, as opposed to wasting yours when you have to take two extra seconds to think about her posts?

Back on the subject--yes, one could derive pleasure from doing something bad, but there's also the potential for guilt. Strength of conscience is the benchmark, the little meter on a person's forehead that tells what kind of person they are. And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct.

---

I never said that people couldn't express their opinion, and nightshade's case in an exception to the group of individuals i am referring to. Honestly, if an individual's language skills are poor than it is up to them to improve them. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the reader to decipher another's writing if it is faulty. Rather, the individual being read should make an effort to bring their writing to a level that includes fundamental lucidity. In any case, there shouldn't be any misspelled words or grammatical mistakes. There are such things as dictionaries and spellcheck to aid in such an endeavor. If an individual is too lazy to bring themselves to an acceptable level of expression with the English language by learning it, they shouldn't post. Legitimate medical disabilities obviously do not fall under this category, as that is not a matter of lazyness.

All I'm saying is that those in this forum who have the capability (granted, there are a select few who don't because of circumstances within their life, such as in night shade's case) to learn english and use it effectively should. If they choose not to (it's a choice, ultimately) then they shouldn't post. Those who do not have English as their primary language would do well to learn English, as it is the primary tool of expression in this forum. Did I say immigrants couldn't come here and post? No, all I'm saying is that if they do desire to post they should do so after making sure they have a good handle on the English language. Until then, they could post on forums which use their native language and continue to expand their knowledge of English while doing so until they are ready to post here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX

I never said that people couldn't express their opinion, and Nightshade's case is an exception to the group of individuals I am referring to. Honestly, if an individual's language skills are poor then it is up to them to improve them. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the reader to decipher another's writing if it is faulty. Rather, the individual being read should make an effort to bring their writing to a level that includes fundamental lucidity. In any case, there shouldn't be any misspelled words or grammatical mistakes. There are such things as dictionaries and spellcheck to aid in such an endeavor. If an individual is too lazy to bring themselves to an acceptable level of expression with the English language by learning it, they shouldn't post. Legitimate medical disabilities obviously do not fall under this category, as that is not a matter of laziness.

All I'm saying is that those in this forum who have the capability (granted, there are a select few who don't because of circumstances within their lives, such as in Nightshade's case) to learn English and use it effectively should. If they choose not to (it's a choice, ultimately) then they shouldn't post. Those who do not have English as their primary language would do well to learn English, as it is the primary tool of expression in this forum. Did I say immigrants couldn't come here and post? No, all I'm saying is that if they do desire to post they should do so after making sure they have a good handle on the English language. Until then, they could post on forums which use their native language and continue to expand their knowledge of English while doing so until they are ready to post here.

---

XXdarkclarityXX,

This Forum is open to people from all walks of life; it is visited by people from all over the world; they come from different social, economical, religious, cultural backgrounds and it is this very diversity that makes it the wonderful place that it is.

It is true that the communication medium is English but we don't discourage people who are in the process of learning English from posting. It is an opportunity for them to practise, which can be something hard to come by if you are living in a foreign country.

What's more, there are many native English speakers who have trouble with spelling/grammar rules. If you find yourself really unable to deal with such superficial issues, please feel free to ignore such posts/users and read the ones which fulfill your criteria of good English.

PS: I hope you will forgive me that I have taken the liberty of correcting some spelling mistakes you made... I could not venture on the punctutation and context as I am short of time.


Now, please let's stay on topic and carry on with the topic of discussion, atheism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX

falling moon,

Have you ever tried to write a coherent, gramatically correct essay? Are you aware that most rhetorical arguments lose substantial credibility when they are not correctly formulated?

Secondly, you are under an unproven assumption that there IS something to doubt. How do you know that "God" wants us to worship him? Prove to me there's something to worship and then I'll start worshiping something. "God", falling moon, is jut a set of ideals. Goodness, charity, honor, selflessness.....those are all qualities displayed by stories which depict this "God". But what we are meant to follow are these ideals themselves, and we shouldn't believe that there's a person who actually hears everyone's prayers and brings people back to life. The scripture stories all show that following these IDEALS will allow you to be rewarded in the form of other people thinking well of you. Prayer is just a confidence booster, there's no one listening to that prayer except yourself. It boosts your confidence and gives you hope because by speaking to an imaginary friend (the equivilant to God) you've complained to someone else. Then, when something good happens, you can praise "God" for answering your incessant complaints. When something bad happens, all of a sudden you've created a scapegoat. Did you do badly on a test that you had prayed about the night before? Don't blame God, and don't say it's his will! It's yours! You shape your choices. Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life?

I apologize for the certain level of rambling, wherever apparent within the above text. Thank you and I welcome responses.

Edited by Logos to remove flames

---

xxdarkclarityxx,
Evidently your first two sentences proved to be more sensational than the majority of your post, and I'm not sure that you were as welcominig to the responses given than you intended. heh. But being me, I would like to refocus the conversation on the whole religion/atheist issue.

Firstly, you ask, "Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life?" Well, my friend, we don't have total control over our lives. We are subject to chance, disease, disaster, and all manner of "random" misfortunes. And the belief that someone does have control over our lives, over such phenomena, the belief that there's a force in the universe other than cold chance and coincidence can be reassuring.

Secondly, you're whole prayer hypothesis is intriguing, though at times, a little harsh, even vindictive (I suppose Catholicism really must have been shoved quite forcibly down your throat). But I do not mean to dsicredit your thoughts, but rather to build on them. If I am to understand you correctly, prayer and religion is in fact an adaptive behaviour: it reduces stress, it soothes, it offers protection (or for you atheists, a false sense of protection). And, in fact, I do believe that I've come across the stat that those who are religious generally have a slightly longer liife expectancy than those who are not. So perhaps the whole concept of religion was selected as adaptive behaviour vea evolution (which admittedly is very ironic). So my dear atheists, rather than argue with believers, why not congratulate them on practisinig so adaptive a behaviour?

Anyways, those are some thoughts, consequently I disagree with my entire second paragaph, but I hope it will evoke some initeresting discussion.

-Water lily :nod:

Welll :eek: I saw my name. Dont know why I came in here today as I usually avoide these places however now that Im here I might as well join in :D

Quote:

---

And indeed, one of the most frightening things to see is two people arguing about religion, each one certain that their own view is correct

---

Actually thats not the scariest thing Robin, the scariest is without doubt when you can it there and tottally belive one side of the argument and yet see that the other side is right too. Now I havent gone back and read this thread totallly yet, I havent really the time just now so sorry if its been said orif this is way off topic but , personally I think many of the "big/book" religons are the same but not.
I mean if you look at the details and ignore the big enoroums things that seperate thm its thge same thing. sort of like if you had 4 pictures and you chopped 3 of them up then stuck them back together differantly, they'd all be the same picture in detail/ or close up but each one is differant too.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by water lily

xxdarkclarityxx,
Evidently your first two sentences proved to be more sensational than the majority of your post, and I'm not sure that you were as welcominig to the responses given than you intended. heh. But being me, I would like to refocus the conversation on the whole religion/atheist issue.

Firstly, you ask, "Why would you believe in something that states that you don't have total control over your life?" Well, my friend, we don't have total control over our lives. We are subject to chance, disease, disaster, and all manner of "random" misfortunes. And the belief that someone does have control over our lives, over such phenomena, the belief that there's a force in the universe other than cold chance and coincidence can be reassuring.

Secondly, you're whole prayer hypothesis is intriguing, though at times, a little harsh, even vindictive (I suppose Catholicism really must have been shoved quite forcibly down your throat). But I do not mean to dsicredit your thoughts, but rather to build on them. If I am to understand you correctly, prayer and religion is in fact an adaptive behaviour: it reduces stress, it soothes, it offers protection (or for you atheists, a false sense of protection). And, in fact, I do believe that I've come across the stat that those who are religious generally have a slightly longer liife expectancy than those who are not. So perhaps the whole concept of religion was selected as adaptive behaviour vea evolution (which admittedly is very ironic). So my dear atheists, rather than argue with believers, why not congratulate them on practisinig so adaptive a behaviour?

Anyways, those are some thoughts, consequently I disagree with my entire second paragaph, but I hope it will evoke some initeresting discussion.

-Water lily :nod:

---

There's a critical difference there that you should note--evolution is genetic. Religion (or lack thereof) is not.

Besides, some of us atheists do indeed support the religious in their endeavours.

Quote:

---

Besides, some of us atheists do indeed support the religious in their endeavours.

---

Robin, you can't be playing both sides against the middle here. You are either in favor of atheism, or you support some sort of religion. Why support "the religious in their endeavors" when you don't support the ideals which they stand for? That's like saying "I support the troops in Iraq but not the war", which is total BS because the troops are part of the war. In any case, I think I need to make a critical distinction myself: The people that are part of a group support that group's ideals. The endeavors are religious and are based on ideals which the religious people follow. Athiests don't support religion in any form, which means we shouldn't be supporting them or their actions.

What's wrong with someone supporting religous people but not finding it in himself to believe? Radical atheists are just as obnoxious as radical believers. Perhaps more so, since why should they care what other people believe?

To XXdarkclarityXX:

It appears that you are unaware of the wide variety of atheistic philosophies available. ANALOGY POLICE! I think it's more like saying, "I support the troops in Iraq, but I don't necessarily agree with the ideals of every soldier--only the overall cause for which they fight."

I happen to think that religion can be an overall positive influence on the lives of the majority of people IN GENERAL. I simply don't feel that a theistic religion is right FOR ME. Just as trying to qualify oneself as 100% is one mistake, another is thinking that the same religion or philosophy is right for everyone.

in response to robin's comment:

Quote:

---

There's a critical difference there that you should note--evolution is genetic. Religion (or lack thereof) is not.

---

Have you heard of cultural evolution? it works in a similar way, you pass on your ideals, your way of life to the younger generation if you live long enough and if it is a successful behaviour. And furthermore how does one know if religion is not genetic--not religion exactly--but the capacity for spiritual thought, a cognitive thing.

-water lily