Islam: What is your problem

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Finnegan and I were having a robust discussion and may have done a bit of vilifying, but it was pretty much fifty fifty in terms of who was vilifying who, do you have an opinion on the thread topic or have you just popped in to score some thumbs.

I think you are being a hypocrite in your "robust discussion". Now you admit you were vilifying Finnegan. Do you also reserve the right to vilify RJHinds? Or is it only Finnegan who can't?

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are being a hypocrite in your "robust discussion". Now you admit you were vilifying Finnegan. Do you also reserve the right to vilify RJHinds? Or is it only Finnegan who can't?

I think you are being an idiot if you cannot, or choose not to see the difference between two posters giving as good as they get, and one poster such as RJ Hinds being singled out constantly by any number of posters for ridicule and abuse for his opinions and beliefs.

So any thoughts on the actual topic or just limbering up for another internet bullying session once you have sniffed out the easy meat.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think you are being an idiot if you cannot, or choose not to see the difference between two posters giving as good as they get, and one poster such as RJ Hinds being singled out constantly by any number of posters for ridicule and abuse for his opinions and beliefs.

So any thoughts on the actual topic or just limbering up for another internet bullying session once you have sniffed out the easy meat.

So now you are trying to vilify me as well?

Originally posted by FMF
So now you are trying to vilify me as well?

Trying? Yeah if somebody makes a guest appearance on a thread just to slag me off I will bite if I have the time, But unlike RJ you and I do not have whole threads dedicated to getting other people to boycot your posts, and people complain about a mob mentality.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Trying? Yeah if somebody makes a guest appearance on a thread just to slag me off I will bite if I have the time, But unlike RJ you and I do not have whole threads dedicated to getting other people to boycot your posts, and people complain about a mob mentality.

It's a little bit peculiar that you somehow seem to think it's ME bullying YOU in this exchange. I think you're a bit of a hypocrite over this 'vilifying' thing, and said so, that's all. Personally - reading this thread - I think Finnegan has you well pegged, and even if you remove him pointing that out from his posts, they still contain a lot of thought provoking material. If I could say the same about your posts, I would.

I don't really see why you think RJHinds needs your protection: he issues the most self-righteous, grinding, insulting, dehumanizing denunciations of fellow posters that a Christian has at their disposal - pretty much the nastiest thing that Christians can say - over and over again, day after day after day, thread after thread, sometimes several times in the same day. He needs no help or defence from you when it comes to the incessant vilification he metes out.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think you are being an idiot if you cannot, or choose not to see the difference between two posters giving as good as they get, and one poster such as RJ Hinds being singled out constantly by any number of posters for ridicule and abuse for his opinions and beliefs.

So any thoughts on the actual topic or just limbering up for another internet bullying session once you have sniffed out the easy meat.

So any thoughts on the actual topic or just limbering up for another internet bullying
session once you have sniffed out the easy meat.

FMF doesn't do forum topics, his speciality is turning almost every discussion into an ad
hominem fest of gargantuan proportions. Yes he smells, 'easy meat', like a shark does
a drop of blood, hundreds of meters away. He has sensory receptors in his beard that
tingle at the delight.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FMF doesn't do forum topics, his speciality is turning almost every discussion into an ad hominem fest of gargantuan proportions. Yes he smells, 'easy meat', like a shark does a drop of blood, hundreds of meters away. He has sensory receptors in his beard that tingle at the delight.

So says robbie, someone who does not like being told that what he's said does not add up. Actually, I think one of the things I am perhaps recognized for is how seldom I resort to ad hominems, and how spectacularly many of them I draw from you, sometimes page after page after page. Just saying. 😵

Originally posted by FMF
So says robbie, someone who does not like being told that what he's said does not add up. Actually, I think one of the things I am perhaps recognized for is how seldom I resort to ad hominems, and how spectacularly many of them I draw from you, sometimes page after page after page. Just saying. 😵

page after page, haha, you are notorious! 😛

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
page after page, haha, you are notorious! 😛

Yes, your "slimy... slime... stinking... slimy... slime" one went on for several pages, for example. Just a few weeks ago. You may brush these things aside in a way that somehow makes you think that they didn't happen. But they do happen. I'm not sure you see yourself as many others may see you, robbie.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, your "slimy... slime... stinking... slimy... slime" one went on for several pages, for example. Just a few weeks ago. You may brush these things aside in a way that somehow makes you think that they didn't happen. But they do happen. I'm not sure you see yourself as many others may see you, robbie.

you don't brush slime aside FMF, you wash it off, just sayin.

Originally posted by googlefudge
While I agree with allot of what you say I have to disagree with you whole heartedly here.

Many scientists (although much less than a majority nowadays) do indeed believe in god and/or are religious.

However in the science vs religion compatibility debate the question is not can people be scientists/accept
science and be religious/believe in god ...[text shortened]... diametrically opposed to one another.

Those scientists that claim otherwise are confused.

Sometimes I am on your side in this matter. I personally think that it is reasonable for a scientist or someone with an interest in science to take each and every claim in relgiion and subject this to examination, scrutiny, where possible test, otherwise to seek beter alternatives and I think if we do that then it is possible to demolish the claims of religion - especially those of the monotheist religions whose disputes with each other are ultimately self destructive.

The internal contradictions within, for example, Christianity, have been known since their early debates with the Greek philosphers. Augustine of Hippo concluded that they could not be resolved and that it was necessary to choose either faith or reason; one could not have both.

Aquinas disagreed on the grounds that in this case conversion would never be possible when dealing with people of a rival faith in which the Christian version of the bible was not an agreed authority. However, cutting a huge story very short, the project to establish religious faith on sound rational grounds has always failed. Ultimately, they only convince the faithful and not usually even them if they are trained in reasoning.

Most religious authorities consider it is a doomed project to ground faith in reason. Having said that many intelligent thinkers retain their commitment to faith. They do not all seek to rest their dogmatic convictions on spurious reasoning and debased science. I have read interesting stuff in particular from a few Anglicans like the current archbishop of Canterbury, who is quite an amusing writer and has no truck with literal reading of the bible for example. The former Bishop Holloway is one of many religious thinkers who have gone on record saying that ethics and morality are also not matters that can be resolved within any onje religious school of thought - ethics for example are frequently utterly outside the scope of biblical teaching.

If people like that are prepared to avoid spurious and dishonest attacks on science and reason, they are at least entitled in exchange to a more balanced and open debate with others including atheists.

If you take two topics - religious tolerance and medical ethics - then I would suggest these are best approached without taking a dogmatic position either for or against any particular set of religious or anti-religious convictions. My preference is the term "secular" to imply something like that.

In addition, some approaches to science are dubious. The novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch was one who pointed out that while so called hard scientists dismiss metaphysics as irrelevant nonsense, (I love Richard Feynman but he is a great example of someone arguing that all philosophy is a waste of time and futile) they nevertheless make metaphysical assumptions and metaphysical errors all the time and would benefit by listening to other perspectives more often.

And science has a part to play in helping religious people to clear up some of their own thinking. I think of archaeological research into the origins of biblical texts.

Ultimately we need an approach that is less dogmatic on both sides. I think I can hold many positive impressions of religion without having to comform to its teaching. Reading about Alexander the Great last month, I was struck by how much sense it made to examine his religious beliefs as part of his story, without which it makes much less sense.

Originally posted by FMF
It's a little bit peculiar that you somehow seem to think it's ME bullying YOU in this exchange. I think you're a bit of a hypocrite over this 'vilifying' thing, and said so, that's all. Personally - reading this thread - I think Finnegan has you well pegged, and even if you remove him pointing that out from his posts, they still contain a lot of thought provoki ...[text shortened]... eds no help or defence from you when it comes to the incessant vilification he metes out.

You appear to have deluded yourself into thinking I, or anybody else cares what you think of them FMF, that is why I consider you to be an idiot, plus the fact that you focus almost entirely on the poster instead of developing your own stance on the issue under discussion.

I think you have tried to set yourself up, as the forums headmaster and you get quite rankled when fellow posters disrespect your self appointed position.

As for RJ, apart from his attitude to Islam and subsequent negative generalisations on that particular religion He is far from the most vitriolic of posters on these forums, and his continuous repetition of his stock in trade catchphrases, well I am surprised to find that you are disturbed by them.

If you can be bothered to read the posts between Finnegan and myself you may conclude that RJ was collateral damage whose mistake was to divulge to me his emotional attachment to another forum character for which I rebuked him in a lighthearted way and for what I believe were tactical reasons, Finnegan united us in an unholy mysogynistic alliance.

So do you really feel dehumanised by RJs ramblings, or are you using him as we'll?

Originally posted by FMF
It's a little bit peculiar that you somehow seem to think it's ME bullying YOU in this exchange. I think you're a bit of a hypocrite over this 'vilifying' thing, and said so, that's all. Personally - reading this thread - I think Finnegan has you well pegged, and even if you remove him pointing that out from his posts, they still contain a lot of thought provoki ...[text shortened]... eds no help or defence from you when it comes to the incessant vilification he metes out.

You appear to have deluded yourself into thinking I, or anybody else cares what you think of them FMF, that is why I consider you to be an idiot, plus the fact that you focus almost entirely on the poster instead of developing your own stance on the issue under discussion.

I think you have tried to set yourself up, as the forums headmaster and you get quite rankled when fellow posters disrespect your self appointed position.

As for RJ, apart from his attitude to Islam and subsequent negative generalisations on that particular religion He is far from the most vitriolic of posters on these forums, and his continuous repetition of his stock in trade catchphrases, well I am surprised to find that you are disturbed by them.

If you can be bothered to read the posts between Finnegan and myself you may conclude that RJ was collateral damage whose mistake was to divulge to me his emotional attachment to another forum character for which I rebuked him in a lighthearted way, and Finnegan, for what I believe were tactical reasons, united us in an unholy mysogynistic alliance.

So do you really feel dehumanised by RJs ramblings, or are you using him as we'll?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
You appear to have deluded yourself into thinking I, or anybody else cares what you think of them FMF, that is why I consider you to be an idiot, plus the fact that you focus almost entirely on the poster instead of developing your own stance on the issue under discussion.?

I think you'll find that I tend to focus on particular aspects of the issue in hand and when I highlight contradictions or refuse to settle for dodges and deflections, certain posters focus on me instead.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
So do you really feel dehumanised by RJs ramblings, or are you using him as we'll?

No I do not feel dehumanised by RJHinds' ramblings. Indeed, it seems rather clear that it is you who is using RJHinds in all this, not me.