Author Topic: Treating Religiosity (Read 2016 times)

moot · « **Reply #45 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:22:25 PM »

And if I decide you're my idol, can't I make your spirituality my religion?

Suave · « **Reply #46 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:22:55 PM »

Grunherz, you are an agumentative person. You don't care about the truth, you care about appearing right.

You're deliberately misconsruing the definitions of disease. You know my aids analogy was apt at illustrating the irrelevance of prevelant state of a population as difinitive of biological malfunctioning, aka disease.

And you're trying to make it appear that I'm aserting that fanatacism is a disorder, soley for the purpose of appearing to be the one to disprove it.

Now before you get all hurt, I'm not an atheist, and you're the one being insulting. If I am the enlightened one, then why am I the one questioning and you're the one telling me that my questions are wrong?

Did you come to this thread to discuss? Or did you come resolved to defend an agenda?

Nash · « **Reply #47 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:24:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
And if I decide you're my idol, can't I make your spirituality my religion?

You could, but that would be tragic.... and utterly human, sadly.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #48 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:25:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
yeah, it's not the machine that's the subject, it's the "spiritual concept", chill

GH, the way I see it, that's not what he's saying.
He's meaning that there is a certain amount of reliance on irrationality that is past a certain disfunctionality tolerance threshold, just like you aren't "sick" at the moment, yet harbouring a sizeable amount of non-symbiotic organisms.

He's not revolutionizing anything about the day to day coexistence between rational thought and religious values.

I would give him the benefit of the doubt except that Suave has said before that he belives religious people are anti social or criminals moreso than than people without faith. So basically this thread clearly continues his theme that religios people are somehow abberant...

Nash · « **Reply #49 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:30:31 PM »

moot · « **Reply #50 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:30:59 PM »

I'd need clarification on whether he said that, and what he meant by a few of those words before saying anything more.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #51 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:31:44 PM »

Suave no need to argue with semantics. Disease, disability, disfunction, disporder, syndrome etc call it whatever you want as long as you acknowlege that those 10% who are not religious are missing an normal brain function shared by 90% of all humans across the clobe, across all nations, ethnic groups etc..

BTW I love the irony of yoiu saying that others are pushing an agenda..

Comedy gold Suave, comedy gold!

Suave · « **Reply #52 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:38:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I would give him the benefit of the doubt except that Suave has said before that he belives religious people are anti social or criminals moreso than than people without faith. So basically this thread clearly continues his theme that religios people are somehow abberant...

Now you're a Lia. Somebody said that morality and religion go hand in hand. To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does. Thus disproving the implication that morality was invented by religion.

The thing is, Grunherz knows that is what I meant, but again he is misconstruing what I said in his characteristic way for the purposes of satisfying his inner bully.

Nash · « **Reply #53 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:39:11 PM »

Grun,

Hate it when folks attack the messenger....

If you can't stick to talking about the issue, and not the person, then stay the shreck out.

Suave · « **Reply #54 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:43:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Suave no need to argue with semantics. Disease, disability, disfunction, disporder, syndrome etc call it whatever you want as long as you acknowlege that those 10% who are not religious are missing an normal brain function shared by 90% of all humans across the clobe, across all nations, ethnic groups etc..

BTW I love the irony of yoiu saying that others are pushing an agenda..

Comedy gold Suave, comedy gold!

Your contention is that because they are not fanatics of any kind that their brains are physically different from those that are fanatics?

Is this what you want people to believe that I'm postulating?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #55 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:44:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does.

There we go, he belives religios people are more antisocial etc than non religious people...

Was thsi post meant to prove I said anything innacurate about yiur views?

BTW Suave I agree that morality does not come from religion. But the rest of your post is bunk considering that 90% of the world is religious, your 10% of abberants are not significant...

I hate those peronal attacks too Nash, too bad Suave had to call me a liar when I exposed his "agenda."

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #56 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:45:40 PM »

Suave, I'm just not buying your benign pretense for this tread bsaed on yoiur views about religion in other discussions... You clearly stated your belief that religius people are more antisocial than non religious people. Now you bring in a vague article abour religious thoughts being some chemical or functional brain disorder and one saying that one of christiasnity's main early proponents was mentally ill.

Give me a break...

moot · « **Reply #57 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:52:49 PM »

This isn't the first time religious-morphic predisposition was reported.

Suave · « **Reply #58 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:53:30 PM »

Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population. I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.

Are you saying that this isn't true?

And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.

Nash · « **Reply #59 on:** November 13, 2004, 11:55:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Suave, I'm just not buying your benign pretense ...

So freaking WHAT if that's his opinion?

I feel my faith deeply... and I didn't get bothered by his post. I thought it was damned interesting. In fact, I thought it was great.

What the shreck is so wrong with someone having a different idea than you?

I can live with it....

You?