Selsaral

Clearly your silly analogy doesn't work. You claim atheism is a religion. It isn't. You claim atheists will never change their interpretation. They do every day, when presented with evidence. You're right about one thing, it will be impossible to convert atheists into believing in superstitious stories with nothing but fairy tales and silly myths.

diana

FarSeeker,

Yes, he is undeniably down on religion and its adherents. Unfortunately, if we were to jump everyone who taunted and mocked believers in these forums, we'd soon find ourselves ruling an empty kingdom.

As to plaigerism, I'll simply repeat what one of my college profs said, as I think he said it succinctly: You cannot steal an idea--only the expression of an idea..

Even were it possible to plaigerize an idea and you wished to assert the story in question was plaigerized by Mr. Payne, you might find yourself in the uncomfortable position of defending its originality in Xnty.

However, if you wish to pursue this charge against Mr. Payne's story, which was published in our Agora, the proper forum for critiques (charges of plaigerism, and evidence) thereof is the Feedback Forum.

David, no problems. Understandable.

d

Jayhawker Soule

Is there a reason (other than, perhaps, ego) not to let this thread die?

the_cave

Except that truth and justice aren't matters of majority opinion; if there is a universal standard of morals (not to mention scientific knowledge...), following it and imposing it seems to me to be a somewhat authoritarian activity. I'm not sure authoritarianism can ever be completely escaped. Granted philosophy faculties and the peer review system are more democratic than papal bulls, but there's still an element of non-democratic authority present.

diana

While I am annoyed with gratuitous bumping, I have no problem with any thread continuing so long as there is valid discussion on that thread.

d

David M. Payne

Thank you Diana.

ReasonableDoubt/ConsequentAtheist why don't you count my posts on this thread, and subtract them from the total number of posts, and then make your case about my ego keeping this thread alive. I think FS has almost as many posts as I do here, and you have a few too, so you've done your part to keep it alive, haven't you? (By my count 79 of 344 prior to this one are mine, or my alter ego, which is less than 25% of the posts on this thread, if I did my calculations right. I think your ego argument falls a little flat RD/CA, although I surely have one, most people with strong opinions do, don't they?)
As for rotten tomatoes, I was doing the same things I do here, posting threads and generating discussions. Isn't that what we all do here and other sites on the Internet? I was also doing that here, where you under your old name of ReasonableDoubt, also seemed to have a problem with my thread there. Why is that? What is the problem? Do you have a problem with the argument here? Do you have a problem with me? (I'm not perfect, and I sure do rub some people the wrong way. Oh well, such is life.) Do you object to my methods? (I'm always looking to improve them, perhaps you would like to give me some pointers?) Do you have a problem with the exercise of my free speech rights here? If you have a problem with the exercising of my free speech rights, I suggest it is your problem, deal with it. If you don't like the way I write, or what I write about, that’s cool, to each their own, just ignore it. You are free to express how the OP of this thread is not agreeable with you and why. Perhaps you would like to make the case for our theist friends here as to how the OP is all wet? I would sure like to see that. So RD/CA, would you care to address what it is you don't like here, or do you just want to make a gratuitous swipe at me?

As for letting this thread die, I'm only replying to posts that other people make. No one makes any posts, the thread will die. I think those who have argued the atheist/agnostic side have pretty well defeated the theist arguments on the OP of this thread. I think it is just a hard post for the theists to ignore, it is their tar baby to some extent, and they would like to defeat the argument, but so far they haven't. Perhaps you can RD/CA. Care to give it a go?

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and they still suck them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!

David M. Payne

FS, you owe me an apology, be a man and make it. You told a lie, that I was a plagiarist, which is about the worst accusation anyone can make about a writer. To every post you make I will repeat this until you give me one, or you admit defeat, slink off and let this thread die.

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and they still suck them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!

David M. Payne

TC, you maks some good points here. My problem with authoritarianism isn’t when it is practiced in small settings, hell this place is run somewhat along authoritarian lines. It's when it's done on a national or international scale, and we get the Nazi or Marxist or religious genocidal results. This is where it gets dangerous for humanity.

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and they still suck them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!

Vorkosigan

Except that truth and justice aren't matters of majority opinion; if there is a universal standard of morals (not to mention scientific knowledge...), following it and imposing it seems to me to be a somewhat authoritarian activity. I'm not sure authoritarianism can ever be completely escaped. Granted philosophy faculties and the peer review system are more democratic than papal bulls, but there's still an element of non-democratic authority present.

Nonsense. There is nothing authoritarian about peer review. Anyone can submit an article to a peer reviewed journal. And getting rejected does not mean that one cannot publish.

You've conflated different kinds of authority. The authority of the Pope cannot be argued with; it is pure compulsion. Neither evidence nor argument can sway it, and all are bound to it. To say the Pope is an authority means that he has political power. To say that Stephen Hawking is an authority means that he knows alot about his chosen field. Two very different meanings.

Note that you do not have to follow scientific pronouncements. You can attempt to melt copper at 180C, or cure leprosy by laying on of hands. There is no "authority" in science that need be listened to. You can ignore it as you please. That is not true of people like Hitler or the Pope. In their spheres they cannot be ignored.

Vorkosigan

David M. Payne

Vork, your reply was better than mine. I've got to stop trying to post when its late and I'm tired.

David

"God, and religion, the oldest scam in history, and it still sucks them in today. So free your mind, and your body will follow!