DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[C0ckney]

it has. it's just that people continually present 18th century criticisms of religion and think they're being smart, and that that's all there is to say about it. it's the kind of thing that make me want to beat said people round the head with a copy of leben jesu.

[Asher]

The fundamental criticisms do not become less valid because the centuries changed. Religion is still religion.

The real problem is people who think they're being smart by dismissing arguments they've no hope of countering by simply claiming we moved on two hundred years ago. That may be the most limp argument I've yet seen on this site, in fact.

[C0ckney]

the 'fundamental criticisms' (i.e. the 18th century rationalist ones that you present) have been addressed in the last 200 years, and in ways that may well surprise...i would encourage you to read about it.

[Asher]

Why are you even posting if you refuse to contribute in meaningful ways?

The criticisms remain entirely valid, no matter what you think decisively countered a pretty blatant philosophical argument.

[C0ckney]

i am pointing out that your criticisms of religion are 200 years out of date and that things have moved on considerably since then. i think that's pretty meaningful.

it's a bit like if you post a thread about programming and some dude refuses to move beyond talking about BBC basic. are you going to educate him about everything that's happened since then or tell him to go read some ****ing books and get himself up to date.

[Lorizael]

This has to be one of the dumber arguments I've seen in awhile.

Asher: There are arguments that refute your arguments!
Cockney: No there aren't. My arguments refute your arguments!
Asher: No, mine!
Cockney: Mine!
Lorizael: This has to be one of the dumber arguments I've seen in awhile.

[C0ckney]

that's actually a very poor summary lori.

[Lorizael]

I disagree. There are several reasons why it's a very good summary.

[giblets]

I disagree. There are several reasons why it's a very good summary.

Those reasons were refuted ages ago.

[C0ckney]

i kind of walked into that one

[Lorizael]

Those reasons were refuted ages ago.

[Asher]

i am pointing out that your criticisms of religion are 200 years out of date and that things have moved on considerably since then. i think that's pretty meaningful.

it's a bit like if you post a thread about programming and some dude refuses to move beyond talking about BBC basic. are you going to educate him about everything that's happened since then or tell him to go read some ****ing books and get himself up to date.

What an inane example.

Philosophical discussions do not become obsolete like technology does.

Are you trying to troll me with this recent binge of stupidity, or has living in Brazil started to **** with your mind?

You are dismissing a perfectly valid argument wholesale with a comment that the argument was essentially decisively countered "200 years ago". Then without any more guidance or specifics, you condescendingly tell me to read up on it. It's ****ing ridiculous and twatish.

[Elok]

While I'm going to stay out of this stupid argument like I stay out of most religion arguments, it's worth pointing out that Asher was arguing with Kid, not famous theologians, philosophers or rationalists from any era.

[C0ckney]

i'll write a proper response when i have time tomorrow.

however i will say two things, firstly when you write 'binge of stupidity' and then have the gall to call me condescending, it's quite funny. secondly, my analogy is a very apt one. you (and i don't just mean you personally, i've pulled up mobius on this before) when talking about religion, are like the guy bleating on about BBC basic in a discussion about programming today. the arguments and debates have moved on. the 'base' upon which religion is constructed and argued for has changed. the arguments against have also changed. you are out of date.

[Elok]

I don't think it's helpful or accurate to describe all religion/s as resting on a single "base." Certainly my belief doesn't rely on all (possibly not on any) of the same assumptions or attitudes as a Mormon's, a Buddhist's or a Jain's.