Men in dresses against men marrying each other
-
I don't disagree with what you say. However, I defend the right that everyone has to their opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. That is all. Even if the church preaches damnation if you disagree with them, they still have that right. I don't see the media, beer companies, tobacco companies, etc, as being very different. To be "cool" you have to do what they say. And even though I disagree with their message, I do defend their right to have that message.
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
In America you'd be hard pressed to spot a school where a church wasn't within two blocks, usually within line of site. You see billboards, hear commercials, deal with people knocking at the door to give pamphlets,etc. I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
If it moves, compile it
-
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Quote:
rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit.
But, I think we will argue all day long on who defines what has merit. :) I do believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe God has said so. So I do believe any Christian church has enough merit to preach that message. I also respect anyone who disagrees and respect their right to voice their opinion.
-
In America you'd be hard pressed to spot a school where a church wasn't within two blocks, usually within line of site. You see billboards, hear commercials, deal with people knocking at the door to give pamphlets,etc. I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
If it moves, compile it
-
Quote:
rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit.
But, I think we will argue all day long on who defines what has merit. :) I do believe homosexuality is wrong because I believe God has said so. So I do believe any Christian church has enough merit to preach that message. I also respect anyone who disagrees and respect their right to voice their opinion.
-
So, argumentum ad verecundiam. I can do that too, here: god does not exist, because Richard Dawkins said so. Not very compelling, is it?
-
Quote:
argumentum ad verecundiam.
You are incorrect. You do not know me and cannot make that assumption. Remember what assume does to you.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
Wait a second. That was a lot of big words and I am not sure you ended up saying anything. :) But what is that about an "unjustified opinion?" How can an opinion be unjustified? Opinion is just a personal belief, you can't tell me my opinion is unjustified. Your opinion is unjustified.
-
Wait a second. That was a lot of big words and I am not sure you ended up saying anything. :) But what is that about an "unjustified opinion?" How can an opinion be unjustified? Opinion is just a personal belief, you can't tell me my opinion is unjustified. Your opinion is unjustified.
-
Basically I said: you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason. That's OK really, just a bit silly. But I did actually argue that that is the case, I didn't just take it up as my opinion because I felt like it.
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
-
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
No no look, I actually included that as a possibility. I'll just rehash it here I guess. In that case your argument is still broken, because gods existence doesn't in itself validate the bible, so we still don't know his opinion. But even if we did know gods opinion on the matter, so what? That's still an appeal to authority.
-
Quote:
I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
Do you believe the media "shares their beliefs" less than churches?
-
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]I am personally against gay "marriage" in part, since marriage by definition implies the potential of childbearing. But, whatever. But, I'm also against the gov't getting involved in the situation.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No, my point was that what was illegal a few years ago is now considered 'normal'; however not everyone has reached the point where they accept that. More importantly is, as I said before, that we have a reasoned and open debate and listen to everyone's point of view, even those diametrically opposed to ours. As to my personal views ... well, they're personal.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
well, they're personal.
Then what's the point of having them?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
harold aptroot wrote:
still walking around with an unjustified opinion.
If he believes in God, which he clearly does, that's justification enough.
harold aptroot wrote:
unjustified opinion.
Really? Opinions don't need justification since they are subjective and not necessarily based upon fact or knowledge. Merely "reason".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun