both are largely purpotrated by people who take an "anti-intellectual" stance, and so people who are pro-thought have what may be an unnecessarily harsh prejudice towards religious folk.

THAT'S it. That what i'm saying. I dont get accosted by this type of religious conscriptor, so i'm not pushed to think any worse of religious people, and I see the same history you guys do.

I dont want to be a grey area war-lord, but I just am very shocked by people who have a solid answer to something this vauge.

(Edit: I come from the mirko filipovic school of subtilty).

what happened to this thread?

kenoki wrote:what happened to this thread?

aew wrote:I dont want to be a grey area war-lord, but I just am very shocked by people who have a solid answer to something this vauge.

What's vague? One group says it knows God, the creator, who makes all decisions in the universe and is both eternal and infallable. My group says it knows no such thing. It is certainly possible that such a thing is true, that Big Ernie exists, but I see no reason to pretend that I know it to be true. And the havoc wrought in our society in Big Ernie's name is enough to make me want to distance myself from his acolytes. What's vague about it? I am either absolutely damned to Hell, or it is a load of crap.

That there are occasionally good men who believe in God is no surprise. Some men do good. Some men believe in God. Some do both. As my cousin would have said, "big whoop."

I suppouse i can't argue with that. It's just from my background, to draw a conclusion you need proof positive for what you'r saying. Not based on your reaction to the poeple who came up with it. (Issac Newton had a thing for young boys, that doesn't mean everything he came up with was shit).
Since I can't prove god exists or doesn't, I see what fits best intutivley, and acknowldge i could be wrong. Not only do i respect (but can also sort of see why) people dont believe in god. I'm not a 100% sure if the opposite is true.

*hands steve a ciggarette*,... Good discussion, how was it for you?

a guide to posting on the EA forum for relative newcomers.

it's quite simple, it's based on an old maxim a friend of mine once told me about new bands. he told me that the best thing a band can do is spend six months writing the best songs they can possibly come up with and then simply throw them away.

thus, if you want to engage in a debate during your first six months on the EA forum - think really hard about your reasoning, come up with the best possible argument you can construct and then simply delete it.

thank you in advance.

aew wrote:I suppouse i can't argue with that. It's just from my background, to draw a conclusion you need proof positive for what you'r saying. Not based on your reaction to the poeple who came up with it. (Issac Newton had a thing for young boys, that doesn't mean everything he came up with was shit).
Since I can't prove god exists or doesn't, I see what fits best intutivley, and acknowldge i could be wrong. Not only do i respect (but can also sort of see why) people dont believe in god. I'm not a 100% sure if the opposite is true.

*hands steve a ciggarette*,... Good discussion, how was it for you?

*Vile image crossing my pristine Catholic imagination* Out, demonic image!!

But seriously- interesting exchange in some respects, Ernie...errr....Steve and Ali. There's some strangely admirable element in Albini's anti-faith.

si-maro wrote: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 don't see this superiority complex thing you speak of. I can think of lots of discussions where people's (frequent, consistent) grammatical and syntactical shortcomings go un-bollocked, for the sake of the flow of discussion, and out of consideration for a person's feelings. When grammar or spelling does get corrected, it's usually either (a) relevant to the discussion, (b) done humourously, or (c) after a person has behaved like a complete twat anyway.

Grammar and spelling are important. This forum has the balance just about right, I'd say. I don't feel like someone is being a dick to me if they correct me, as long as it isn't done in an intimidating or patronising way (which it never has been, in my case at least). How am I going to learn if people don't point out my mistakes?

In the last few weeks I have learned what a split infinitive is, and correct usage of who/whom. In neither case was I humiliated in any way.

Incessantly bad grammar and spelling is frustrating to read. I think those people on this forum who - for whatever reason - have weak grammar are cut a fair bit of slack round these parts, to be honest. I include myself; I'm sure I write plenty of grammatically offensive shit in my posts, but I don't get openly laughed at about it.

steve wrote:What's vague? One group says it knows God, the creator, who makes all decisions in the universe and is both eternal and infallable. My group says it knows no such thing.

still, just because a person is "religious" doesn't mean he has to belong to the first group. i would, in fact, strongly associate myself with the second group, although i'm definitely not an atheist. i know you aren't arguing against the fact that there are intelligent, critically-thinking religious folk, but you're certainly inferring it, whether intentionally or no.

just pointing that out, for what it's worth. then again, maybe i'm just putting on an air of intellectualism.

I have been reading this thread. It's really good......not a waffle in sight with that remark either.