FMajcinek wrote:(T)here are some very smart people here, and many of them write well. They express their ideas beautifully. Those of us who enjoy their posts, and want to be part of the conversation, try our best to further our own ideas as clearly and elegantly as they do. That is, we admire them and we try to measure up. Sometimes this happens at the expense of clarity and sometimes we learn that we are just not as smart as we think we are.

Frankie Machine: I know you are genuinely too humble to think so, but you clearly belong to this group of truly thoughtful, smart, highly articulate EA folks that you refer to.

Me: I enjoy Adrian Zmed's work.

Not really wanting to jump in to the argument, but kinda doing it anyway:

I love this forum, but it's the only one I've ever come across where people jump on each other and take the piss out of spelling and/or grammar errors. Now that is not only putting on an intellectual raincoat or whatever the hell Wauck's weird turn of phrase was, it's also just an ugly kinda self-justified superority complex thing that is completely insensitive to the problems people have with spelling and grammar. Anyone who does it is a dick.

I'm not asking people to dumb down, just to make their arguments terse. (In that the content is primary cause, and the style is secondary, rather than trying to sound smart with some pretty average content).

aew wrote:Who on god's earth are these religious people your talking about? Seriously it's the mirror image of Matthew's left wing elitist argument.

So, as part of your argument you're going to say you don't know where the notion that organized religion has social/political influence comes from. That's your query? You are not being honest with your inquiry, or you live in a cave. But not a cave in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, the United States, Ireland... oh, fuck it.

I dont know where you got this "carved in stone" idea, (moses, ok ok ok) but how do you explain the many different schools of thought in each religion?

Oh that part is easy. People made that shit up (different tribes of people scattered all over the world), so of course it is inconsistent. Within each religion, the adherents all claim they're right, because they need the authority of divinity to enforce their lust for social control.

What part of this is puzzling to you?

Mortard:

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... tard#57251

"So, as part of your argument you're going to say you don't know where the notion that organized religion has social/political influence comes from. That's your query? You are not being honest with your inquiry, or you live in a cave. But not a cave in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Israel, the United States, Ireland... oh, fuck it. "

It's not part of any argument, I'm genuinely asking... I dont think the majority of the 1.2 billion catholics, or 1 billion muslims are using their religion for political purposes. In the majority of cases I've seen (including myself) the religion is there for the benefit of the person, not with the aim of making some theocratic sate with a benevolent dictator. It's there to give thanks for existence.

Second part: The fact that with the same copy of the koran and bukhari there can be more than one school of thought. To me that's evidence that it's not written in stone. I also feel free to interpret the religious texts, and it's clear that I'll be judged, I and I alone. Nobody will take responsiblity, no chief or clan leader.

aew wrote:
Second part: The fact that with the same copy of the koran and bukhari there can be more than one school of thought. To me that's evidence that it's not written in stone. I also feel free to interpret the religious texts, and it's clear that I'll be judged, I and I alone. Nobody will take responsiblity, no chief or clan leader.

That religious people disagree is evidence that they are human. That they want to apply their specific interpretations universally, that they characterize them as "true," and all other interpretations as incorrect is an appeal to the authority of the divine: "This is what God said, you cannot disagree with it." They are using God as muscle to enforce their (human) inconsistency.

I still do not believe that you are ignorant of the political and social influence of religious thought and dogma. As a non-religious person, these are the only areas of interest to me regarding religion. I am managing my personal life comfortably, and so I have no need for a God in it.

The good qualities which are fostered by some readings of some religious texts (charity, humility, selflessness, forgiveness) are there for all of us to enjoy, and I find them no less noble in people who have decided to value them without religious indoctrination. I consider them irrellevant to the place of religion in the public sphere, because they are personal attributes and are not the focus of the political will of the churches. Where they focus their attention, I am obliged to focus mine to defeat them.

Were the churches fighting tooth-and-nail to end executions, to free prisoners, to feed the hungry, to teach the ignorant, to shelter the homeless, to support those who have fallen ill or destitute -- to break open the granaries, if you will, then I would be beside them helping them do it. As it is, they are on the other side: obsessed with punishment, they are imprisoning more, killing more, making the suffering of the poor and sick more profound and fostering ignorance. I see them as the enemies of civilization, and I am not ashamed of my distaste for them.

si-maro wrote:I love this forum, but it's the only one I've ever come across where people jump on each other and take the piss out of spelling and/or grammar errors. Now that is not only putting on an intellectual raincoat or whatever the hell Wauck's weird turn of phrase was, it's also just an ugly kinda self-justified superority complex thing that is completely insensitive to the problems people have with spelling and grammar. Anyone who does it is a dick.

Where is all this this 'jumping' of which you speak? I've only really seen people on this board jump on each other for errors like that during needly little arguments involving trolls or for comic effect.
I don't really know where you are veering with this argument. I would hate to see someone with genuine English problems be mocked, but elevated, interesting forums discussing complicated issues and good (maybe even eloquent) English tend to have a symbiotic relationship.

sunlore wrote:

aew wrote:
Sorry, if it seems hostile, I'm just really struggling to put down on paper what i'm thinking.

Sorry if it seems hostile, but I think you are really struggling with what you are thinking. If you know what you are thinking, if you are clear about that, you should have no problem putting it down on "paper". Sloppy writing equals sloppy thinking, because words are the stuff that thoughts are made of.

I don't think in well-structured sentences. I get a 'feeling' in my head, an idea, and then a different part of my brain puts it into words. Sometimes I can be totally clear on what I am thinking in terms of an understanding of it in my own head, but I don't know the word for it.

Here is a hastily cobbled together example:

If my first language is Japanese, and I come on a forum where the first language is English, I may have some problems explaining ideas I have, even if I am certain of them in my own mind. I lack the vocabulary.

I think this happens to people in their first language as well, in a sense: If you don't know what the word "pretentious" means, you might have difficulty describing a pretentious person's behaviour in a sensible, understandable way.

I realise I am not one of the eloquent posters. Ah well.

steve wrote:Were the churches fighting tooth-and-nail to end executions, to free prisoners, to feed the hungry, to teach the ignorant, to shelter the homeless, to support those who have fallen ill or destitute -- to break open the granaries, if you will, then I would be beside them helping them do it. As it is, they are on the other side: obsessed with punishment, they are imprisoning more, killing more, making the suffering of the poor and sick more profound and fostering ignorance. I see them as the enemies of civilization, and I am not ashamed of my distaste for them.

C'mon here, cheef, do you really believe what you say in this paragraph? If you'd like, I will provide you with a list of specific churches and specific church-based programs that are doing precisely what you claim no churches are doing. Do you really want that list, so you can give up recording and go fight, tooth-and-nail, alongside them?