ChatterBank4 mins ago
What Makes A Good Thread On R & S?
89 Answers
If a believers view is expressed on here, the responsive message is, in general terms, "Shut up stupid! Father Xmas & Tooth Fairy. You betray yourself thinking illogically! You are wrong and we are right!"
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What are you looking for Theland? Compliments? Huh! You've come to the wrong place - but then you knew that anyway! ;o)
I was never impressed by references to the tooth fairy, Father Christmas, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, etc. All that is just an attempt to appear to possess a vastly superior intellect, and for me personally it doesn't impress. It's a complete waste of time. I'd much prefer to argue the real facts over a drink at the local - and if necessary agree to disagree and clink glasses at the end of the night.
By the way Theland, you do think illogically. ;o)
I was never impressed by references to the tooth fairy, Father Christmas, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, etc. All that is just an attempt to appear to possess a vastly superior intellect, and for me personally it doesn't impress. It's a complete waste of time. I'd much prefer to argue the real facts over a drink at the local - and if necessary agree to disagree and clink glasses at the end of the night.
By the way Theland, you do think illogically. ;o)
Now you know how non-believers feel when someone else's religion is stuffed down their throat. Wherever you go you run into religion, churches to worship false idols enjoy many legal government concessions and tax breaks. Up to very recently, law courts endorsed the Bible as a tokenism to tell the truth. Even during sex and swearing you can't get away from it! We are doomed I tell you.
As one who has often used the Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy analogy I stoutly defend it.
And its use, naomi, is not an attempt to display a vastly superior intellect, though it does, by its very nature, illustrate a reasonably sound intellect that can argue logically. I might also add that despite several invitations from me to do so, no-one has ever refuted it, merely dismissed it loftily.
So here it is again:
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are supernatural creatures which are said to do magical things and for whose existwence there is not a modicum of evidence.
God is a supernatural creature which is said to do magical things and for whose existence there is not a mdiculm of evidence.
So if you reject the former for logical reasons you must surely reject God for the same reasons. Conversely, if you accept God then you must accept Santa and the fairy. The logic could not be more straightforward, which is why, no doubt, the argument is so far unassailed.
And its use, naomi, is not an attempt to display a vastly superior intellect, though it does, by its very nature, illustrate a reasonably sound intellect that can argue logically. I might also add that despite several invitations from me to do so, no-one has ever refuted it, merely dismissed it loftily.
So here it is again:
Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are supernatural creatures which are said to do magical things and for whose existwence there is not a modicum of evidence.
God is a supernatural creature which is said to do magical things and for whose existence there is not a mdiculm of evidence.
So if you reject the former for logical reasons you must surely reject God for the same reasons. Conversely, if you accept God then you must accept Santa and the fairy. The logic could not be more straightforward, which is why, no doubt, the argument is so far unassailed.
I agree that R&S is less interesting than it used to be. Though it might seem a daft thing to suggest, it could be that everything that needed to be said has been said.
Every 'argument' used by religionists has been demolished one way or another. What we often have now are newcomers who haven't read the earlier demolition jobs, which then get repeated, boring the old-timers to death. And yes, I know that I am one of the worst offenders in that respect.
Atheism, not being a philosophy or a creed, has no dogmas or doctrines that can be discussed or debated. And it's difficult to imagine the faithful opening up new topics after all these millennia.
Every 'argument' used by religionists has been demolished one way or another. What we often have now are newcomers who haven't read the earlier demolition jobs, which then get repeated, boring the old-timers to death. And yes, I know that I am one of the worst offenders in that respect.
Atheism, not being a philosophy or a creed, has no dogmas or doctrines that can be discussed or debated. And it's difficult to imagine the faithful opening up new topics after all these millennia.
"Every 'argument' used by religionists has been demolished one way or another. What we often have now are newcomers who haven't read the earlier demolition jobs, which then get repeated, boring the old-timers to death. And yes, I know that I am one of the worst offenders in that respect."
and that is the failing. any reasoned debate just gets the usual rhetoric tit for tat, nothing new. occasionally some insightful posts, but then the usual keyplus/theland bashing ensues. it is tiring and dull.
and that is the failing. any reasoned debate just gets the usual rhetoric tit for tat, nothing new. occasionally some insightful posts, but then the usual keyplus/theland bashing ensues. it is tiring and dull.
chakka - not really a short attention span. If it was really interesting I would read it no matter how long, but maybe I have just become disenchanted with the whole thing, especially when it goes on for ever just picking over the same old arguments. I would like to believe but I cannot is the basic concept of my life and I would be quite grateful if someone would actually prove to me that there is a God. My thoughts are we go back into the earth and it is the earth which is important in some way which we cannot understand, not us. How can we possibly believe we are important in the scheme of things except to re-fertilise the earth the same as all other animals and living beings do. You will notice chakka that I have had a little rant here and used more than two sentences.
Fair enough, Starbuckone.
Theland, I'll answer your question in a minute. Meanwhile let me say that I have never heard anyone say to you "Shut up, stupid!.. "You are wrong and we are right!" You have certainly been called illogical because, as naomi says, you are.
The consistent criticism of you is that you never respond to rebuttals of your ideas. A good example is your 'argument' claiming that the universe must have been created, by your Creator. I have lost count of how often I have explained the basic flaw in that reasoning. But you have taken no notice, made no response and merely repeated your ideas later as if nothng had been said. You have ignored other people's ripostes similarly.
To your question: the best sort of thread on AB (or in the pub, round the dinner-table or wherever) has A making a point, B (probably joined by C,D. and E...) answering it, A coming back either to accept those answers or disagreeing with them and giving reasons... and so on, back and forth like tennis.
Alas, on AB the sequence often breaks down because someone breaks the chain.
But then, it's a free country and a free AB...
Theland, I'll answer your question in a minute. Meanwhile let me say that I have never heard anyone say to you "Shut up, stupid!.. "You are wrong and we are right!" You have certainly been called illogical because, as naomi says, you are.
The consistent criticism of you is that you never respond to rebuttals of your ideas. A good example is your 'argument' claiming that the universe must have been created, by your Creator. I have lost count of how often I have explained the basic flaw in that reasoning. But you have taken no notice, made no response and merely repeated your ideas later as if nothng had been said. You have ignored other people's ripostes similarly.
To your question: the best sort of thread on AB (or in the pub, round the dinner-table or wherever) has A making a point, B (probably joined by C,D. and E...) answering it, A coming back either to accept those answers or disagreeing with them and giving reasons... and so on, back and forth like tennis.
Alas, on AB the sequence often breaks down because someone breaks the chain.
But then, it's a free country and a free AB...
I say, always start with a joke.....
Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose girl'.
The priest asks, 'Is that you, little Joey Pagano ?'
'Yes, Father, it is.'
'And who was the girl you were with?'
'I can't tell you, Father. I don't want to ruin her reputation'.
"Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?
'I cannot say.'
'Was it Teresa Mazzarelli?'
'I'll never tell.'
'Was it Nina Capelli?'
'I'm sorry, but I cannot name her.'
'Was it Cathy Piriano?'
'My lips are sealed.'
'Was it Rosa DiAngelo, then?'
'Please, Father, I cannot tell you.'
The priest sighs in frustration. 'You're very tight lipped, and I admire that. But you've sinned and have to atone. You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months. Now you go and behave yourself.'
Joey walks back to his pew, and his friend Franco slides over and whispers, 'What'd you get?'
'Four months vacation and five good leads.'
Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have been with a loose girl'.
The priest asks, 'Is that you, little Joey Pagano ?'
'Yes, Father, it is.'
'And who was the girl you were with?'
'I can't tell you, Father. I don't want to ruin her reputation'.
"Well, Joey, I'm sure to find out her name sooner or later so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?
'I cannot say.'
'Was it Teresa Mazzarelli?'
'I'll never tell.'
'Was it Nina Capelli?'
'I'm sorry, but I cannot name her.'
'Was it Cathy Piriano?'
'My lips are sealed.'
'Was it Rosa DiAngelo, then?'
'Please, Father, I cannot tell you.'
The priest sighs in frustration. 'You're very tight lipped, and I admire that. But you've sinned and have to atone. You cannot be an altar boy now for 4 months. Now you go and behave yourself.'
Joey walks back to his pew, and his friend Franco slides over and whispers, 'What'd you get?'
'Four months vacation and five good leads.'
