Copenhagen, the wash up

[Thales750]

Nor do I care. My statement was based on the hypothetical situtation I was describing, not trying to prove to you that you are wrong.

Maybe, but your language sounds harsh, for someone seeking a conversation.

 

[Thales750]

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

SYDNEY – A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it was struck by a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said.
The boat's six crew members were safely transferred to another of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels, the newly commissioned Bob Barker. The boat is named for the American game show host who donated $5 million to buy it.
The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.

 

[Fifty2One]

The BEST part of that story is that they were there trying to harass and clash with the Japanese fleet and when they end up cuttin so close to a larger vessel they sustained damage they claim it was an unprovoked attack.
I think that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society really neads to look at strategies which do not make them look like idiots bent on self sacrafice and start looking for ways to actually stop the whaling if that is their intent.

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

SYDNEY – A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it was struck by a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said.
The boat's six crew members were safely transferred to another of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's vessels, the newly commissioned Bob Barker. The boat is named for the American game show host who donated $5 million to buy it.
The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Maybe, but your language sounds harsh, for someone seeking a conversation.

How about: "I think you misunderstand me Mr. Thales750. I didn't mean to imply that I know what you believe in. The paragraph that you are referencing was a hypothetical situation, not a situation directed specifically at you."

That better?

If we're going to conform to some sort of civilized debate, then perhaps you should abstain from the use of straw man arguments.

 

[Thales750]

How about: "I think you misunderstand me Mr. Thales750. I didn't mean to imply that I know what you believe in. The paragraph that you are referencing was a hypothetical situation, not a situation directed specifically at you."

That better?

If we're going to conform to some sort of civilized debate, then perhaps you should abstain from the use of straw man arguments.

Would you be so kind as to point to some of my straw man arguments, please?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Would you be so kind as to point to some of my straw man arguments, please?

Certaintly.

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

 

[Thales750]

Certaintly.

Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed. Still, I don't think you are clearly defining "straw man"

 

[Adam Caramon]

Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed. Still, I don't think you are clearly defining "straw man"

Sarcasm is 'allowed' as long as its easily understood. When the flow of a conversation goes something like this:

[quote=Thales]
I have yet to witness religion more extreme than the atheist.
[/quote] ...
 [quote=Adam Caramon]
You must not get out much. When was the last time you seen an atheist kill someone over their beliefs? I would say murder is more extreme than loud/aggressive debating on an online message board.
[/quote] ...
 [quote=Thales]
Only Religious fanatics start trouble.
[/quote]

The use of sarcasm here is confusing. Instead of trying to prove that atheists are just as violent as religious fantatics, or that religion doesn't have a sordid relationship with violence (which would disprove my earlier statement), you attempt to change my argument so that I am stating atheists never start trouble (i.e., creating a stawman). Then you use one particular example to disprove your strawman.


Did I define strawman clear enough for you?

 

[Thales750]

Sarcasm is 'allowed' as long as its easily understood. When the flow of a conversation goes something like this:

 ...
  ...

The use of sarcasm here is confusing. Instead of trying to prove that atheists are just as violent as religious fantatics, or that religion doesn't have a sordid relationship with violence (which would disprove my earlier statement), you attempt to change my argument so that I am stating atheists never start trouble (i.e., creating a stawman). Then you use one particular example to disprove your strawman.


Did I define strawman clear enough for you?

What you missed, was that, I do believe that atheism is a religion; filled with the most extreem folowers.

 

[Adam Caramon]

What you missed, was that, I do believe that atheism is a religion; filled with the most extreem folowers.

Right, which is why the sarcasm is confusing. Why be sarcastic when what you said is what you actually believe?

So either you were sarcastic because you don't actually believe that atheists are violent (or as violent as your statement implies), or you were expressing what you truly believe at which point:

Oh I see, so no sarcasm allowed.

Becomes irrational.

Either way, I think you've dug yourself into a hole.

 

[Thales750]

Right, which is why the sarcasm is confusing. Why be sarcastic when what you said is what you actually believe?

So either you were sarcastic because you don't actually believe that atheists are violent (or as violent as your statement implies), or you were expressing what you truly believe at which point:



Becomes irrational.

Either way, I think you've dug yourself into a hole.

Not at all, most reader are estute enough to know when it's real or when it's sarcasm.

 

[Rabbie]

What you missed, was that, I do believe that atheism is a religion; filled with the most extreem folowers.

You may believe that atheism is a religion - I would beg to disagree

I am not aware of any terrorist threats to blow up planes by atheists. Followers of Islam yes, Atheists no. Still I suppose you know best and that blowing up planes is less extremist than not blowing them up. Heh by your definition you must be an extremist since you don't blow up planes

 

[dan-cat]

So either you were sarcastic because you don't actually believe that atheists are violent (or as violent as your statement implies), or you were expressing what you truly believe at which point:

How does this statement

Only Religious fanatics start trouble.

taken as sarcasm, show either of your conclusions to be correct

 

[Adam Caramon]

Not at all, most reader are estute enough to know when it's real or when it's sarcasm.

You are not making any sense whatsoever. What are you referring to when you say "Not at all."

Your last few statements have not made a lot of sense. I'm not sure if it is the spelling/grammar mistakes that are throwing me off, or if you are intentionally trying to be vague?

 

[Rich]

You are not making any sense whatsoever.

His statements never make any sense

 

[Pauldohert]

What a load of garbage! I have never had atheists knocking on my door as the Jehovahs Witnesses do. And how open are the minds of many religous people? Closed minds can be found in all religious sects.

I said here? Nice of you to take the time to think and form a conclusion about something I never said. You could keep yourself quite busy that way!

 

[Rabbie]

I was quoting from Thales not you so don't worry about it.

 

[Thales750]

I was quoting from Thales not you so don't worry about it.

It is rather interesting however, that you guys (atheist posters) are so quick to try to marginalize people with different beliefs then yourself. And how you supposedly use logic to prove without a shadow of doubt that you are correct.

Sounds pretty fanatical to me.

Personally I could care less if you’re a fanatical or not, saved or not, or anything else.

It’s just that your hypocrisy seems to have no limits.

 

[Adam Caramon]

It is rather interesting however, that you guys (atheist posters) are so quick to try to marginalize people with different beliefs then yourself.

I can't speak for all atheist posters (I don't consider myself an atheist even), but I respect everyone's beliefs. I find religion to be a very interesting subject and I have studied it often.

I simply believe religion should be something that stays at home.
When political leaders attempt to use religion to control people it really bothers me.

It’s just that your hypocrisy seems to have no limits.

If you could prove that then you would be making an earnest care towards atheism being a religion.

 

[Thales750]

I can't speak for all atheist posters (I don't consider myself an atheist even), but I respect everyone's beliefs. I find religion to be a very interesting subject and I have studied it often.

I simply believe religion should be something that stays at home.
When political leaders attempt to use religion to control people it really bothers me.



If you could prove that then you would be making an earnest care towards atheism being a religion.

I agree in principle with most of this.

Funny how building relationships is always preferable to not, even when it comes to unarguable topics.