ldo17.bsky.social
Geek
2,957 posts
201 followers
30 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
I thought a lot of the de-mining experts were independent groups. Some even funded by charities.
comment in response to
post
You don’t accept the reality of religious intolerance happening in a great many parts of the world today?
This is a matter of fact, not religious doctrine.
comment in response to
post
You yourself admitted they are not “inerrant”. Therefore you must know of errors in them.
comment in response to
post
All the attempts to counter my arguments have been based on simplistic interpretations of religious doctrine.
comment in response to
post
Come on, it’s true of all the major religions. Look at the religious intolerance that’s happening as a fact.
comment in response to
post
All of them. The legal text — even historical narratives often have to be amended as new information comes to light.
comment in response to
post
They would only need “resettling” if they were expelled from where they were.
Israel’s attempt to empty out Gaza seems to have hit a hiccup. And the West Bank will be even more difficult.
comment in response to
post
The martingale betting system has been well-known for about 300 years.
comment in response to
post
If your holy books have errors in them, are you allowed to fix them?
comment in response to
post
The fact that they are simplistic is very much germane to the point at hand.
comment in response to
post
You said I lack the knowledge to assess them as simplistic.
comment in response to
post
But the primary mandate of UNHCR is to get the refugees back to their original land.
comment in response to
post
The fact that significant numbers of followers of the religion cannot be characterized as “moderate”, shows that such “moderate” interpretations are not inherent to the religion itself.
comment in response to
post
That you don’t accept those generalizations as simplistic ... and you claim that I lack knowledge about them.
comment in response to
post
Here’s the question again:
Is there a religion whose adherents are more “moderate” than any other?
comment in response to
post
Everything humans create has human fallibility built into it.
The difference is that science does not claim that any religious text is some “inerrant” reference to what is true or false.
comment in response to
post
I would say both of those are simplistic generalizations. But irrelevant to the point at hand.
comment in response to
post
If both moderate and extremist interpretations are common to all religions, then clearly these are not a characteristic of any particular religious belief.
comment in response to
post
Some random pictures and captions ... is that how they teach logical argument these days?
comment in response to
post
Any given principle can be misinterpreted, if all you have to refer to is some statement of the principle itself.
But if the principle is stating some characteristic of reality (as in science), then you have reality itself as the ultimate arbiter of how the principle is supposed to be interpreted.
comment in response to
post
No, not “outnumber”. But that the religious doctrine itself precludes extremist interpretations.
comment in response to
post
That’s agreeing with my point, that such differences of interpretation are to be found across all religions.
comment in response to
post
Not sure how you can have a circular conversation without a circular argument at the heart of it.
comment in response to
post
Simple logic, really. If it’s dependent on one particular form of religious belief, it would not also be found associated with other forms of religious belief.
You, like all religious believers, do not like this basic fact pointed out.
comment in response to
post
I pointed out how chronic disagreements are a sign of circular arguments. They pointed out endless examples of chronic disagreements. I pointed out how that proves my point about circular arguments.
comment in response to
post
No-one here has given an example of a religion that is not fundamentally prone to the complete spectrum of doctrinal interpretations from moderation to extremism.
comment in response to
post
Well, that’s one way to dodge the question.
comment in response to
post
Answer the question, then.
comment in response to
post
I pointed out how chronic disagreements are a sign of circular arguments. They pointed out endless examples of chronic disagreements. I pointed out how that proves my point about circular arguments.
comment in response to
post
No, it’s the way it is because *they* (and you) say so.
comment in response to
post
Is there a religion whose adherents are more “moderate” than any other?
.
.
.
.
.
.
(crickets)
comment in response to
post
I am merely pointing out what all the respondents to me keep saying. They themselves are offering the evidence of my point.
comment in response to
post
The fact that such characteristics are common across all religions. Therefore it cannot be attributable to any particular form of religious belief.
comment in response to
post
Didn’t you read all the postings pointing out examples of that very thing?
comment in response to
post
I would say every religion has its adherents whom you might call “moderate”.
It’s clear moderation is something that is practised *in spite* of any particular religion, not *because* of it.
comment in response to
post
So Hinduism is another religion, with its own share of circular arguments?
Are you trying to disagree with me, or reinforce my point?
comment in response to
post
I pointed out that circular arguments are a characteristic of religious arguments. A number of people went to a great deal of effort to confirm that Judaism has its own share of those — just like any other religion.
comment in response to
post
So where does the term “self-hating Jew” come from?
comment in response to
post
Fine. But it’s not a basis for saying Judaism is special in any way.
comment in response to
post
Doesn’t matter whether they are or are not. That makes little difference to how they characterize other variants of the brand as “true” or not.
comment in response to
post
Pro Internet tip: if you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks, that’s a sign that you’re run out of logical things to say.
In other words, you’ve lost the argument.
comment in response to
post
Nobody seems to have legally trademarked their religion name. So yes, all these “brands” do allow for plurality. Yet at the same time their practitioners tend to be reluctant to acknowledge that.
comment in response to
post
Nothing wrong with dissent and disagreement. The issue is whether there is a way to resolve such disagreements. With issues that are based on facts, the usual answer is to go away and collect more data.
Religious texts typically do not allow you to add to them in that way.
comment in response to
post
Funny, I thought those of you arguing with me saw it as a problem, which is why you tried to hard to claim I was wrong.
Now it turns out you agree with me.
comment in response to
post
It shows that different followers of the same brand would argue that those other followers are not “true” followers of the brand.
comment in response to
post
The question is whether such disagreements can be resolved over time or not. The fact that they tend to multiply, instead of reduce, over time, suggests the answer is no, which in turn points to circularity.
comment in response to
post
Does that count as a “religion”? I would say most of its practitioners are, like followers of the FSM, pretty tongue-in-cheek.
comment in response to
post
UNRWA was already looking after Palestinians in those other countries. So Israel ends up dealing with UNHCR instead of UNRWA — how will that make it happier?
comment in response to
post
Health care ethics always ultimately come back to how patients respond to care. There is no “book of doctrine” to interpret or reinterpret to decide what the rules are. It’s all about patient well-being. And that comes from factual evidence, not from religious “revelations”.
comment in response to
post
“Tautology” is an argument that conveys no new information. “Circular argument” is one that tries to claim to convey information, but its justification assumes the truth of that information to begin with.