wow
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Aug 21, 2007 7:53 PM EDT |
This has to be the all-time weirdest earthquake report. Especially the last paragraph. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 12:03 AM EDT |
Gosh... Nothing like waiting for hundreds to die and countless thousands to be displaced to take a swipe at people's faith -- something that tends to serve one best at times of tragedy and upheaval. RMS truly is an odd duck, with no offense meant to our web-footed friends. |
| jrm Aug 22, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
If only the question had been... "Could you please relate the recent Peruvian earthquake to Catholicism in the 1700s?" |
| tracyanne Aug 22, 2007 5:17 AM EDT |
He's also correct in his assessment - The religious do tend make such illogical aassumptions. |
| devnet Aug 22, 2007 6:27 AM EDT |
tracyanne, Agreed...they do. It's funny how logical technology pundits and aficionados can be...yet when it comes to the aforementioned subject logic flies completely out the window and logic is one of those members crushed in the earthquake. |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2007 6:32 AM EDT |
> The religious do tend make such illogical aassumptions. You'll should prove the assumptions are illogical before you make such statements. :) If you accept the premise that there are supernatural entities influencing events on earth, their assumptions may be quite logical. Demonstrating that there are no such supernatural entities hasn't proven to be as easy as some would think. in any case; some religious folk make assumptions such as those listed by RMS, some don't. It's unwise to group all religious people under one banner. Their are too many religions and too much diversity within individual religions to do so reliably. Added: I should also note that logic is one tool among many that people use. It is not the be all and end all of existence. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 22, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
My advice is to drop this discussion, or take it offline. These things tend to piss somebody off pretty quickly, and folks at Lxer should should only piss people off with their opinions about Linux and Free Software, not religion. We're a diverse group and I don't want anyone to feel alienated or belittled, whatever side of the religious tracks they come from. Just my O, yo. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 6:42 AM EDT |
OK....
Before we get kicked off -- Just shows how callous, thoughtless, and inhumane RMS and others can be. Whether faith makes sense or not, it is a source of strength and comfort and strength to those who have it. That statement at that time and in that context -- utterly gratuitous -- was just plain nasty. An ugly act by an arrogant and thoughtless man. |
| tuxchick Aug 22, 2007 6:55 AM EDT |
well dino, I wasn't thinking in quite such strong terms as you, but it did strike me as rather cold and without compassion. I know he was asked for a first-person report, but glossing over the destruction and casualties comes across as heartless and self-centered. Yay he was minimally inconvenienced, sheesh. :P |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
TC - You are a kinder soul than I am. I guess I would feel a little more kindly if this didn't echo a statement he made in the days following 9/11 -- and I mean very few days -- to the effect that the loss of 3,000 or so lives was insignificant compared to the potential loss of freedom caused by government efforts to protect us. He is his own universe. |
| jacog Aug 22, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
The headline "Stallman survives Peruvian quake" is bit over the top though since it seems he was too far away from any significant activity. It might as well have read "Jaco G survives Peruvian quake" ... I think BIll Gates might be a survivor too... better check, just to be sure. As for religion... eep... let's not go there... we had a long and heated argument on another forum I frequent, and it wasn't pretty. Misogyny, religion, and the usual political stuff all in one week? In fact, I believe Al Gore's global warming crusade has come up too this week. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 7:28 AM EDT |
> Al Gore's global warming crusade Better not call it a crusade... |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
> My advice is to drop this discussion, or take it offline. Agreed. I apologize for entering the discussion. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
>Agreed. I apologize for entering the discussion. You're way too nice. |
| mvermeer Aug 22, 2007 7:35 AM EDT |
I wouldn't judge RMS as harshly as some of you do. This shows him as a cultured person with an unusually broad background in Western history. Remember, he was asked, by a Western web site (for which the Peruvian victims would be anonymous body counts anyway), for his personal, immediate response to his experience. He wasn't asked to pamper religious (over-)sensitivities. I am not surprised that he remembered an event that happened at a time when the Enlightenment was taking off in Europe, and which was discussed very broadly in intellectual circles (Leibniz, the young Kant, Goethe and others wrote about it). At the time it was a big event in terms of its effect on the intellectual debate. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
>This shows him as a cultured person with an unusually broad background in Western history. Cultured person? Educated, maybe. Cultured? I should hope not. I would like to believe that one can be cultured without sacrificing one's humanity. |
| tuxchick Aug 22, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
It shows him as a self-centered jerk completely lacking in compassion. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 7:40 AM EDT |
What TC said. |
| herzeleid Aug 22, 2007 8:32 AM EDT |
I respect rms and his achievements over the years, but I have to say this latest quote of his takes a bit of the sheen off. I realize that the linux community here is extremely diverse, and I appreciate that diversity, but I can't help but suspecting that without faith, hope and love, we're all just highly intelligent, cunning and malicious apes. No offense intended. |
| gus3 Aug 22, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:The headline "Stallman survives Peruvian quake" is bit over the top though since it seems he was too far away from any significant activity. It might as well have read "Jaco G survives Peruvian quake" ... I think BIll Gates might be a survivor too... better check, just to be sure.Were you close enough to a deadly quake to feel it? If so, you survived it. I was not so close, so I'm not a quake survivor. |
| Abe Aug 22, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:we asked if he would share his experiences with us I really can't understand what everyone here is talking about. The guy was asked to share his experience and he did. For some reason he felt to express his observations too, and he did. I read the article couple times with special emphasis on the last paragraph. I don't see anything he said that is insulting in any way to a religion or religious group. He merely stated his observation about how people apply logic to obtain one conclusion yet don't apply the same logic to draw other conclusions. RMS is not religious and he could be an atheist from what I know and according to what I have read. I am religious, conservative person myself and I don't take his remarks to be offensive. They are merely his observations. He didn't show compassion! True, he he did not. I am not sure about not being compassionate! There are many different ways of showing compassion. Would you rather see someone claim to be compassionate but have none like some religious fakes? I sure don't. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 9:55 AM EDT |
>He didn't show compassion! Umm, no. He showed a complete lack of compassion and humanity. That's a much stronger statement than he "didn't show" compassion. He was a thoughtless jerk. |
| gus3 Aug 22, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:The guy was asked to share his experience and he did. For some reason he felt to express his observations too, and he did.The last paragraph went from observation to interpretation, from facts to telling us what we are supposed to think of the facts (based on his own prejudices). That's where he crossed the line. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 10:06 AM EDT |
>That's where he crossed the line. And we need to remember the context. If nobody had been hurt or killed by the earthquake, the combination of statements would be merely kooky. |
| Abe Aug 22, 2007 10:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:That's where he crossed the line.Whose line you speak of? Yours? Who defines the line? You guys to your own standard and understanding? Interpretation of what facts? Would you like to elaborate and point to what facts? What is this not being compassionate? Is it because he didn't say anything like poor souls, God bless their souls, this shouldn't happen to them? Well, such things happen every day and to anyone. We all feel sorry for such things happening to anyone. We are humans and we all are vulnerable to such incidents. The point I am making is, different people express their sorrow and sadness in different ways and some more than others. Heck, some people just don't know how to, yet might be more compassionate and saddened in their heart more than any one else who preach hollow words. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 10:41 AM EDT |
>The point I am making The point you're making is clear enough, though it might not be the point you think you're making. |
| Abe Aug 22, 2007 11:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:The point you're making is clear enough, though it might not be the point you think you're making.May be I am confused, or may be you are. It is a possibility, isn't? I guess, the good thing is, we had the chance to express opinions. Like others suggested, may be it is best to let go now. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 22, 2007 12:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:may be it is best to let go now. Yup, it is. There's always Usenet if you want to discuss this further. http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=33571887&expand=1 |
| tracyanne Aug 22, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:It shows him as a self-centered jerk completely lacking in compassion. On the contrary, I think it demonstrates a person with Asperger syndrome. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 2:44 PM EDT |
>On the contrary, I think it demonstrates a person with Asperger syndrome. OK... A self-centered jerk with Asperger syndrome completely lacking in compassion. |
| tracyanne Aug 22, 2007 3:47 PM EDT |
I think you fail to understand Asperger Syndrome. From what I've have read of, and by, Stallman, I don't think he's a jerk, a little too fixed on certain subjects maybe (but that would be the Asperger Syndrome), but not in the least lacking in compassion, and certainly not a jerk. Just an inappropriate comment given the circumstances, which those who routinely can the bloke would delight in using as evidence that he's a jerk. |
| dinotrac Aug 22, 2007 4:02 PM EDT |
> those who routinely can the bloke would delight in using as evidence that he's a jerk. Some of us would take much more delight with evidence that he's not. |
| tracyanne Aug 22, 2007 4:11 PM EDT |
Well I can't give you that. I can only speak to what I've read about and by him, and my personal knowledge of Asperger Sysdrome. |
| azerthoth Aug 22, 2007 4:40 PM EDT |
So when was he diagnosed with Aspergers? I have read that he has been noticed to have SOME of the traits. The most blinding that he doesn't have though is a sub 80 IQ. Though I disagree with him on more than 50% of the topics he chooses to discuss, seeing him as a high functioning autistic just doesn't enter into the picture. |
| tracyanne Aug 22, 2007 5:40 PM EDT |
Aspergers does not imply a sub 80 IQ. |
| jdixon Aug 22, 2007 6:01 PM EDT |
> The most blinding that he doesn't have though is a sub 80 IQ. As tracyanne noted, Aspergers doesn't imply a low IQ. In fact, from what I've heard of the syndrome, the exact opposite is usually the case. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 22, 2007 6:16 PM EDT |
Quoting: About 20 minutes after the quake, people reported having heard a news report that the epicenter had been in the jungle, inland. I thought it was good news, because I figured there would not be much damage or casualties there. Not the words of "A self-centered jerk with Asperger syndrome completely lacking in compassion", IMO. The last paragraph seems out of place with regards to the rest of the piece, but not out of line in general or in reference to religious people, at least from his point of view or perhaps from his experience. That statement should have been made in another venue, or at least it should have been fleshed out a little bit more so that he might explain himself. As it reads now, it comes out of nowhere and smacks you in the face. He did himself no good with the statement, but that makes him guilty of bad judgment, not of being a bad person. Quoting: without faith, hope and love Those are very broad ideals, however, and hardly exclusive to people of a "religious" nature, and are very open to interpretation even between people of the "same" opinion. And that, IMO, is a good thing. Quoting: It's unwise to group all religious people under one banner. Their are too many religions and too much diversity within individual religions to do so reliably. So true, so true. Unfortunately (speaking from experience), it is far too common for those with an atheist bend to their outlook (and that can take a lot of different forms, also) to be "strongly" proselytized to by well-meaning (they think) theist believers. They are not a large percentage, but they are quite vocal. I have found that a calm and reasoned discussion can be had between people of different faiths in general, so long as respect is given. In the past, however, I was eager to lash out at religion whenever I had the chance, and I think that's what RMS did here. I've since given up that as pointless, rude and hateful (and hardly an example of "Do unto others" and its myriad cousins), but perhaps RMS has not. Again, that's bad judgment, not bad person. Hopefully I didn't step on toes here, I did not mean to and apologize if I did. Religion is a person's right that I always try to respect, at least now that I am a little older. |
| azerthoth Aug 22, 2007 7:36 PM EDT |
Ah, researching further it was a poorly written highly footnoted article that led me off on that point. 40+ footnotes in the first 2 paragraphs alone tends to distract. However tendencies do not equate to diagnoses, it leads to a need for diagnosis. So far all I have found is references that he displays some symptoms, and reading more on it, I realize that some of I exhibit some of those symptoms as well. So does nearly every person I work with. Until such time as he is honestly diagnosed with it or other physiological disorder I'll have to side with Dino. Otherwise it's much like a story in the news the other day of a mother collecting money for her daughters cancer treatment ... for a daughter that didn't have cancer. |
| gus3 Aug 22, 2007 9:29 PM EDT |
Abe,Quoting:Whose line you speak of? Yours?The line between reporting facts and observations, and telling us what we're supposed to think about them. This is what he said: I read that a church collapsed on worshipers during mass; later I heard that the priest had been rescued. Believers surely attributed the rescue to the good will of a benevolent deity. They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but it would be equally logical. "Surely"? Is he speculating? Geez, right after slamming someone else for speculating about him, he speculates about other people. And am I supposed to think it would be equally logical? No, I see Good as ultimately powerful over evil, and whatever purpose Good has for allowing evil for a short time, does not mean we should simply tolerate evil until some Omnipotence smacks it away. The dualistic idea that Good and evil have parity is repugnant to me, and negates the very notion that one can be called Good and the other not. They become simply two hostile forces between which we choose. Quoting:What is this not being compassionate? Is it because he didn't say anything like poor souls, God bless their souls, this shouldn't happen to them?Using human deaths in a natural catastrophe to make some agnostic/nihilistic point is hardly compassionate. On the contrary, RMS the opportunist saw fit to denigrate a 2,000 year old system of belief to make some out-of-the-blue point on Linux.com, possibly even the faith of his hosts in Peru. When Pat Robertson did the same after Hurricane Katrina, ostensibly trying to make a point for Christianity, he was told in no uncertain terms to "sit down and shut up." RMS is getting the same treatment for the same bad behavior. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 22, 2007 10:05 PM EDT |
Quoting: RMS is getting the same treatment for the same bad behavior. Speculating on the reasons for beliefs you disagree with or find mysterious, even if it comes in the midst of a tragedy, is one thing, it is not the same thing as saying people got what was coming to them for sin as a judgment from god, not even close. Equating RMS to Pat Robertson is absolutely ridiculous. It is not the "same bad behavior" by any means. |
| gus3 Aug 22, 2007 10:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:Speculating on the reasons for beliefs you disagree with or find mysterious, even if it comes in the midst of a tragedy, is one thing,He wasn't speculating. He was criticizing what he perceives as inconsistent thinking. Quoting:it is not the same thing as saying people got what was coming to them for sin as a judgment from god, not even close.Oh? Then what do you call this: They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but it would be equally logical. In other words, he's saying that's what they have to believe, in order to meet his standards of "logic." How grateful I am that I do not answer to him for my beliefs. Quoting:Equating RMS to Pat Robertson is absolutely ridiculous.To cherry-pick a single incident (the rescue of a priest from a collapsed church) out of the many tragedies of the Peru earthquake, in order to make some anti-religious mini-rant, can serve no good purpose whatsoever. It does not reduce the pain and suffering of the survivors. It does not make more bearable the loss of those who perished. Such posturing, with total disregard for true human need, only serves to stir anger and resentment. In that regard, Pat Robertson and Richard Stallman are kindred spirits, indeed. |
| mvermeer Aug 23, 2007 2:00 AM EDT |
> Quoted: > it is not the same thing as saying people got what was coming to them for sin > as a judgment from god, not even close. > Oh? Then what do you call this: > They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but > it would be equally logical. Not the same thing ;-) |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 3:18 AM EDT |
>Not the same thing ;-) Oh come on, Martin. You know better than that. Nothing in life is ever the "same thing". Even two mass-produced plastic forks can be differentiated from each other. The comparison is apt. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 23, 2007 3:57 AM EDT |
Quoting: The comparison is apt. A misguided comment (and, BTW, not an illogical comment, just out of place) is not the same as essentially pointing at a bunch of dead folks and crying, "HA! HA! You got what you deserved, ***hole! God hates you!" Quoting: Oh? Then what do you call this: Inappropriate speculation, not mean-spirited and rejoicing in the tragedy. |
| jacog Aug 23, 2007 4:17 AM EDT |
Hey, Stallman may be a tad stuck in his own little universe, and sure, his comment was out of place and somewhat tactless ... but at least he's no Fred Phelps. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 4:28 AM EDT |
>A misguided comment Misguided? Very few people are as intelligent or as aware of the power and meaning of words as RMS. Misguided, my a**. The man (--is-- forum doesn't seem to support strike-through--ARGGH!!) was a jerk. |
| jdixon Aug 23, 2007 5:21 AM EDT |
> The man is a jerk. Well, he was a jerk in this specific case. On the other hand, there are enough examples of his not being a jerk around that we can safely conclude that he's not always one. I think it's safe to say that we've all been jerks at one time or another, often without meaning to be. RMS obviously has problems with Christianity, and he probably let his biases take over without thinking too much about what he was saying. This makes him a fallible human, like the rest of us. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 5:29 AM EDT |
>Well, he was a jerk in this specific case. Point well-taken. We all have blind spots and we all have bad days. Perhaps we got both at once. |
| jdixon Aug 23, 2007 5:53 AM EDT |
> God hates you! You know, rijelkentaurus, if you expect your comment to be taken seriously, you should at least have some idea of the subject you're writing about. That's not even remotely what Pat Robertson was saying; and given his background it's not something he ever would say. The first part of your comment (You got what you deserved) is pretty much correct though, and that was tactless enough to deserve the criticism he received. P.S. I can explain my comment in more detail in mail if you wish. It would definitely be outside the TOS. |
| jrm Aug 23, 2007 6:27 AM EDT |
Is this winding down yet? Because I have a comment that relates to penguins, religion and RMS. I was abused by nuns. Well, abused is probably not the right word, but they WERE very insistent about doing things the correct way. One of the things they were insistent upon was the proper use of topic sentences. In this case, if RMS had used topic sentences he would have immediately said to himself "What was it I was talking about again?", and we all would have lived happily ever after. To summarize, my main topic is "This thread must die by any means necessary." So take this as a warning. If this thread continues I may be tempted to post again. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 23, 2007 6:28 AM EDT |
Let's drop this discussion people. LXer isn't the place for religious discussions. As I suggested above, try Usenet (http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?&sel=33571887&expand=1) instead. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 6:46 AM EDT |
>LXer isn't the place for religious discussions. Though references to religion and religious folk have been sprinkled throughout, this most definitely is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion about RMS. |
| jrm Aug 23, 2007 6:54 AM EDT |
Sorry. Once again, my twisted attempt at humor has attracted the attention of the authorities. When will I ever learn? ;-) |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 23, 2007 6:24 AM EDT |
Quoting: Though references to religion and religious folk have been sprinkled throughout, this most definitely is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion about RMS. Agreed, although we're on the edge of it....and getting closer all the while..... Quoting: You know, rijelkentaurus, if you expect your comment to be taken seriously, you should at least have some idea of the subject you're writing about. That's not even remotely what Pat Robertson was saying; and given his background it's not something he ever would say. I know of what I am writing, jdixon, however it appears that our interpretations of that man's words may differ greatly. Let's leave it at that. Quoting: P.S. I can explain my comment in more detail in mail if you wish. It would definitely be outside the TOS. Better not, that way we can remain friendly. |
| NoDough Aug 23, 2007 11:33 AM EDT |
Hitler and Nazis! There. I said it. Now, according to Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law this thread is officially dead. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
Hitler and Nazis! OK -- let me get this straight: Hitler had Asperger's? |
| jdixon Aug 23, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
> Let's leave it at that. No problem. His comments left plenty of room for disagreement. > Hitler and Nazis! There's a corollary which says attempting to end a thread by using the terms doesn't work. :) |
| NoDough Aug 23, 2007 1:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:There's a corollary which says attempting to end a thread by using the terms doesn't work. :) You guys are gunna give me a corollary.... er.. something like that. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
>You guys are gunna give me a corollary You wish -- best car Toyota ever made. |
| azerthoth Aug 23, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
Although why the coral chose to grow on him remains a mystery. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 5:54 PM EDT |
>Although why the coral chose to grow on him remains a mystery. Ouch. And there I had been thinking of the place where new Marines are born. |
| mvermeer Aug 23, 2007 10:46 PM EDT |
"They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil
deity, but nevertheless, that's what it was." Had he said this, I would have to agree with you. "They probably did not attribute the collapse to the ill will of an evil deity, but it would be equally logical." That's what he said. Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion, and subscribing to that conclusion (which anyone knowing RMS would know is impossible)? You amaze me Dean. The post to which you responded was intentionally short, as I expected the argument to speak for itself. Funny medium, text. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 11:44 PM EDT |
>You amaze me Dean. Why? >Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between >taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion As an academic, it may be difficult for you to see things that lie outside the text. In the real world, where people live and die, laugh and cry, we are expected to understand the impact of our words and actions. The same statement made over beers with friends on an ordinary day is not a problem, even if transcribed or loaded up to YouTube for the world to see. |
| azerthoth Aug 24, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
Don Imus can get fired for 3 words when he is supposedly a comedian. There is the new and improved standard to which you can judge. Weigh RMS comments vs a comedians 3 words, looks like its time to find a new spokesperson to me in that light. Whats the phrase we bandy about now and then ... oh yeah, "You own your words" |
| jdixon Aug 24, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
> Do you really not see the _essential_ difference between
taking someone else's logic -- hypothetically -- to its natural conclusion,
and subscribing to that conclusion (which anyone knowing RMS would know is
impossible)? Do YOU really not see that doing so was completely inappropriate given the recent events? There is seldom a good reason for ridiculing someone else's religious beliefs. A time when those beliefs might be the only thing sustaining them is particularly inappropriate. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 24, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
Quoting: There is seldom a good reason for ridiculing someone else's religious beliefs. A time when those beliefs might be the only thing sustaining them is particularly inappropriate. I'll agree with that, but I can't agree with the common perception on this thread that RMS is a complete jerk. It was bad judgment, but nothing that makes the man evil. He doesn't spew crap most of the time and is generally (it would seem, at least) a good person. After all, it was his view that not sharing would be immoral that led him to develop the GPL. Also, would it not have been reasonable for Linux.com to use Editorial judgment and whack that last part? Yes, RMS would still have been just as guilty of bad judgment, but I think Linux.com has to be found guilty of the same bad judgment. Or were they hoping for a little controversy to stir up traffic? I think it's a question that begs asking. I don't mean that as an excuse for RMS, but if I wanted to write a feature for Lxer slamming dino or tuxchick or jdixon (unreasonably slamming, that is, since we've all put enough stuff on the forums at times to be skewered for, LOL!) would it be wise Editorial policy to publish it? I'd still be a jerk for writing it, but Lxer doesn't have to be a crappy publication and publish it, right? :) |
| dinotrac Aug 24, 2007 11:05 AM EDT |
>but nothing that makes the man evil. No. And we should be very clear: being a jerk is not the same as being evil. You might have a bad day. You might not know better. Etc. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 24, 2007 3:07 PM EDT |
Or you might be an atheist, and not consider the contradictions of religion to be a taboo subject. |
| herzeleid Aug 24, 2007 3:44 PM EDT |
Or you might not be an atheist, and thus not consider the contradictions of atheism to be a taboo subject (oops - dons flame suit) |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 24, 2007 3:53 PM EDT |
Ha, no flame suit needed. I see no contradictions, just as those who disagree with me see no contradictions in their own view. I'm quite curious, actually, in what the contradictions are that anyone sees who looks "in from the outside" as it were, in any world view. Being close to an issue can cause a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. |
| dinotrac Aug 24, 2007 5:45 PM EDT |
>Or you might be an atheist, and not consider the contradictions of religion to be a taboo subject. Which has nothing to do with this thread. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 25, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
|
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 25, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
Someone please change the direction of this thread before I am forced to moderate it. I have let it go for too long as it is. The subject of religion is for another place, not LXer. Let's try and stick to the subject of the story. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 25, 2007 11:59 AM EDT |
|
| rijelkentaurus Aug 25, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
Scott: I think you just need to go ahead and moderate the thread, these discussions never really die..... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!