FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-27-2002, 08:10 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 633
Post

hal,

"Takes a powder"? I thought I was simply being polite and friendly after a good exchange of views. Or is a polite salute to a tough debating opponent a foreign concept to you? What a jerk.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>
fromtheright is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 08:33 PM   #52
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro
Posts: 1,248
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>hal,

"Takes a powder"? I thought I was simply being polite and friendly after a good exchange of views. Or is a polite salute to a tough debating opponent a foreign concept to you? What a jerk.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</strong>

He's got you hal, some times you can be a jerk. The guy is no longer interested in this subject. One thing FTR, I changed the header, do you find this more appropriate?
David M. Payne is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 12:14 AM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,735
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>
I thought I was simply being polite and friendly after a good exchange of views. Or is a polite salute to a tough debating opponent...

</strong>
This is how I took it. Thanks for the compliment too. I don't know, though, a "tough debating opponent"? You certainly made me concede a few points, but I think all in all it was a rather good debate. If nothing else, I hope you were able to get a different perspective of the question. You definately knew your material well, and kept with a conservative view of only the question at hand (which can be a hinderance, or a help at times. I'll definately be ready to back up my claims to the fullest extent now before I make them, though. Thanks for your feedback, it was refreshing.
Samhain is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 07:07 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 633
Post

David,

I must say the new heading is definitely intriguing but you're right, Samhaim has worn me out--for now. In the way of a "short" (I had to add quote marks when this got a little long-winded) reply to the new heading, I would have to agree that unfortunately you're right, that theists have historically had more power over a longer period of time and often used it to destructive/evil ends, though I have also detailed but a few of many positive accomplishments, including, despite the protestations of many on this board, their sponsorship and even active participation of scientific advances during the Middle Ages, especially toward the end of that period. Even this heading, though, suffers to some extent from the weakness that it's hard to get worked up over a nullity (atheism). However, the openness of atheism to moral relativism (yes, I understand that there are atheists who do hold to an absolute system, but, in my ignorance, the only ones I know of are those who follow(ed} Ayn Rand) has, I believe, led many, such as Communists, to commit horrendous evils on an unprecedented scale. I do believe that Communists/ism has been predisposed to these evils, though I do understand, without accepting, Samhaim's and others' point (if I have correctly stated it) that this was not due to their atheism.

Quote:
quoted from Samhaim:

I don't know, though, a "tough debating opponent"?
all in all it was a rather good debate.
I hope you were able to get a different perspective of the question.
Samhaim,
My hat's off to your "sticktoitiveness" throughout. You didn't back off your own original position in the thread. As to your point of some evil directed against theists being due to the fact that theism exists, it took me a while but I finally "got the point", though I do still disagree with you as to figuring that into the "balance sheet" of that debate.

Yes, it was a good debate. Despite my strong belief in civil and cordial debate between even between bitter opponents I must confess and apologize for my own sarcasm at a couple of points in our exchange.

Also, yes, I did get a different perspective which is part of the reason I enjoy such debate, besides the enjoyment of an attempt to try to persuade someone else of one's own viewpoints.
fromtheright is offline  
Old 04-07-2002, 07:30 PM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The land of chain smoking, bible thumping, holy ro
Posts: 1,248
Wink

Quote:
Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>David,

I must say the new heading is definitely intriguing but you're right, Samhaim has worn me out--for now. In the way of a "short" (I had to add quote marks when this got a little long-winded) reply to the new heading, I would have to agree that unfortunately you're right, that theists have historically had more power over a longer period of time and often used it to destructive/evil ends, though I have also detailed but a few of many positive accomplishments, including, despite the protestations of many on this board, their sponsorship and even active participation of scientific advances during the Middle Ages, especially toward the end of that period. Even this heading, though, suffers to some extent from the weakness that it's hard to get worked up over a nullity (atheism). However, the openness of atheism to moral relativism (yes, I understand that there are atheists who do hold to an absolute system, but, in my ignorance, the only ones I know of are those who follow(ed} Ayn Rand) has, I believe, led many, such as Communists, to commit horrendous evils on an unprecedented scale. I do believe that Communists/ism has been predisposed to these evils, though I do understand, without accepting, Samhaim's and others' point (if I have correctly stated it) that this was not due to their atheism….

&lt;SNIP&gt;

Also, yes, I did get a different perspective which is part of the reason I enjoy such debate, besides the enjoyment of an attempt to try to persuade someone else of one's own viewpoints.</strong>
Sorry I’m so late getting back to you FTR, but I’ve been working on a new short story, “Osama bin Eternal” and between that and my life off line I have been very busy. Where we agree; religion has served as a positive force in some instances throughout the ages, but it is its capacity for eternal strife/warfare that is its Achilles heel. In the past we didn’t have to worry about some small fringe religious zealots movement being a danger to us all. 9/11 changed that.
As for communism and atheism, they are connected, but only because Marx felt Darwin’s theory of evolution was correct. Also as pointed out before, communism recognizes that any religion is a competitor for power, and communism brooks no competition for power ever!
Good luck trying to change our minds here, but you’ll have to show up with God himself in tow to be successful!
David M. Payne is offline  
Old 04-07-2002, 08:36 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 633
Post

David,

You guys'd better watch out for the lightning, tho!

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>
fromtheright is offline  
Old 04-14-2002, 05:36 PM   #57
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: just over your shoulder
Posts: 146
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>David,

You guys'd better watch out for the lightning, tho!

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</strong>
I always watch out for the lightning, when its cloudy!
hal9000 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.