And what religion should you be?

[rideforever]

1 - I think you tend to look at the worst of the worst without realizing that the majority of religious people are quite average everyday people who are just like you and me.

2 - Supposably is as much a word a irregardless.

on ;
It's funny how we portray our images of ourselves onto others isn't it? I'm suprised they can hold somewhat normal lives considering the delusions they live with, but I do see most religious people I've known as somewhat normal people, who don't cause much harm. I said they'are religion causes more harm than good for the average person. That doesn't mean lots of harm, just more than good. And that's relative to the individual, so a religous person would have a worse harm to good ratio than that same person had they not been infected by the delusions. But you assume the worst in what I'm saying and it makes you think I'm focussing on the worst. While I think the worst is so disgustingly horrid, that it deserves focus, I think even the average effect of religion on the average person is enough to say it causes more harm than good.


too ;
You're implying that irregardless is to regardless as supposably is to supposedlleey
irregardless is regardless with an addition that negates it
supposably is supposedly with slightly different spelling
thems differences is not same. If you is promote perfection, you should try abit harder to lede by example

[rideforever]

I think religion causes more harm than good, that is the main reason it's ok to bash it.

And John Right thinks atheists, gays, and most Castanetters cause more harm than good...

yes, it is a terrible sickness he suffers from isnt it

[steven lloyd]

I think religion causes more harm than good, that is the main reason it's ok to bash it.

And John Right thinks atheists, gays, and most Castanetters cause more harm than good...

yes, it is a terrible sickness he suffers from isnt it

That sound of rushing air you just heard was Glacier's point rushing over your head.

[coffeeFreak]

I think religion causes more harm than good, that is the main reason it's ok to bash it.

And John Right thinks atheists, gays, and most Castanetters cause more harm than good...

yes, it is a terrible sickness he suffers from isnt it

That sound of rushing air you just heard was Glacier's point rushing over your head.

[Mr. Personality]

1 - I think you tend to look at the worst of the worst without realizing that the majority of religious people are quite average everyday people who are just like you and me.

2 - Supposably is as much a word a irregardless.

on ;
It's funny how we portray our images of ourselves onto others isn't it? I'm suprised they can hold somewhat normal lives considering the delusions they live with, but I do see most religious people I've known as somewhat normal people, who don't cause much harm. I said they'are religion causes more harm than good for the average person. That doesn't mean lots of harm, just more than good. And that's relative to the individual, so a religous person would have a worse harm to good ratio than that same person had they not been infected by the delusions. But you assume the worst in what I'm saying and it makes you think I'm focussing on the worst. While I think the worst is so disgustingly horrid, that it deserves focus, I think even the average effect of religion on the average person is enough to say it causes more harm than good.


too ;
You're implying that irregardless is to regardless as supposably is to supposedlleey
irregardless is regardless with an addition that negates it
supposably is supposedly with slightly different spelling
thems differences is not same. If you is promote perfection, you should try abit harder to lede by example

How's this, then:
"Supposably" is as much a word as "Frjugntydret" is.

[rideforever]

I think religion causes more harm than good, that is the main reason it's ok to bash it.

And John Right thinks atheists, gays, and most Castanetters cause more harm than good...

yes, it is a terrible sickness he suffers from isnt it

That sound of rushing air you just heard was Glacier's point rushing over your head.

lol.
I'd have to be pretty short for that one to go over. That comparrison is such an insult, I can't argue it without going on and on, and I don't think anyone, including myself would enjoy that. So I went for the short, light-hearted response instead.

[steven lloyd]

That sound of rushing air you just heard was Glacier's point rushing over your head.

I'd have to be pretty short for that one to go over. That comparrison is such an insult, I can't argue it without going on and on, and I don't think anyone, including myself would enjoy that. So I went for the short, light-hearted response instead.

In other words, you need the point explained to you more clearly ???

[rideforever]

huh?
No I think I get it. He's saying I shouldn't be so harsh since I'm acting on assumptions. And using johny as an example of how dumb people sound when they act harshly based on assumptions.

I find that insulting because
my harshness and assumptions are both less severe than johny's, and more justified

johny is harsher because he says all people of a certain group commit the same crimes that the few worst members of that group commit.
I don't. I stick with statements that might be wrong, but are at the least, within a fuzzy area and are hard to prove wrong. I very rarely say things are 100%, and whether I say it's 100% or not, I won't say anything I can't atleast make a reasonable arguement for. Unless I'm joking

johny's assumptions are based on interpretations of interpretations... etc... of some old books. When different 'specialists' can not agree on how to interpret the interpretations, any logical person would see the interpretations or the system in general is flawed and would not act as if they are 100% right. While my assumptions are not 100% right, they are atleast based on my real life experiences, and fairly understanding, fair, and wide view of things. Though my assumptions are much more reasonable than his, I still admit a lot more possible error in mine than he does.


and that's the brief version of how wrong it is to compare me to johny.

[steven lloyd]

No I think I get it. He's saying I shouldn't be so harsh since I'm acting on assumptions. And using johny as an example of how dumb people sound when they act harshly based on assumptions.
... and that's the brief version of how wrong it is to compare me to johny.

I’m sorry rideforever. I’m certainly not going to defend Johnny’s ignorance, but despite all your rationalization and justifying you are using the exact same erroneous reasoning (making assumptions based on stereotype) to do the exact same thing as he is ... and that’s an even briefer explanation on why we can compare you to him. You don’t want to be compared with Johnny ? Then don’t try making lame excuses to justify doing the same thing.

[steven lloyd]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/0 ... hurch.html

Is this an example of the danger of religion, or an example of an idiot using religion as an excuse to be a dangerous idiot ?

[wthwyt]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/09/united-states-obama-quran-burning-florida-church.html

Is this an example of the danger of religion, or an example of an idiot using religion as an excuse to be a dangerous idiot ?

That just PD's older brother.

[rideforever]

No I think I get it. He's saying I shouldn't be so harsh since I'm acting on assumptions. And using johny as an example of how dumb people sound when they act harshly based on assumptions.
... and that's the brief version of how wrong it is to compare me to johny.

I’m sorry rideforever. I’m certainly not going to defend Johnny’s ignorance, but despite all your rationalization and justifying you are using the exact same erroneous reasoning (making assumptions based on stereotype) to do the exact same thing as he is ... and that’s an even briefer explanation on why we can compare you to him. You don’t want to be compared with Johnny ? Then don’t try making lame excuses to justify doing the same thing.

despite all my rationalization? um... those were acouple quick points. that's not even a medium sized portion of all my rationalization.

I'm not doing the same thing as him, I'm not nearly as harsh, and I have much better reasoning. Did I call all religous people rapists? or war-mongers? no. All I said were things that are probably true. Relgious people are delusional, and their relgioon probably causes more harm than good. Neither of those statements can be easily proved wrong, as johny's can.

Maybe I need to be clearer, or you need to actually read what I wrote, but I talked about how I don't use stereotypes

johny is harsher because he says all people of a certain group commit the same crimes that the few worst members of that group commit.
I don't.

I put effort into staying away from stereotypes, partly because they are so easy to prove wrong.

Yes, your arguement is briefer... it's easy to make them short when they're flawed.

Maybe in black and white world, you can say we're similar because we are both harsh. But to anyone who can think within grey scale... you know, actually use some of that grey matter ;) there is a huge difference.

You're sounding alot like capt a... is there more id theft goin on?

[Meema]

No I think I get it. He's saying I shouldn't be so harsh since I'm acting on assumptions. And using johny as an example of how dumb people sound when they act harshly based on assumptions.
... and that's the brief version of how wrong it is to compare me to johny.

I’m sorry rideforever. I’m certainly not going to defend Johnny’s ignorance, but despite all your rationalization and justifying you are using the exact same erroneous reasoning (making assumptions based on stereotype) to do the exact same thing as he is ... and that’s an even briefer explanation on why we can compare you to him. You don’t want to be compared with Johnny ? Then don’t try making lame excuses to justify doing the same thing.

despite all my rationalization? um... those were acouple quick points. that's not even a medium sized portion of all my rationalization.

I'm not doing the same thing as him, I'm not nearly as harsh, and I have much better reasoning. Did I call all religous people rapists? or war-mongers? no. All I said were things that are probably true. Relgious people are delusional, All? religious people are delusional? Is that not a steroptype? and their relgioon probably causes more harm than good. ??? Neither of those statements can be easily proved wrong, as johny's can.

Maybe I need to be clearer, or you need to actually read what I wrote, but I talked about how I don't use stereotypes

johny is harsher because he says all people of a certain group commit the same crimes that the few worst members of that group commit.
I don't.

I put effort into staying away from stereotypes, partly because they are so easy to prove wrong.

Yes, your arguement is briefer... it's easy to make them short when they're flawed.

Maybe in black and white world, you can say we're similar because we are both harsh. But to anyone who can think within grey scale... you know, actually use some of that grey matter ;) there is a huge difference.

You're sounding alot like capt a... is there more id theft goin on?

[steven lloyd]

despite all my rationalization? um... those were a couple quick points. that's not even a medium sized portion of all my rationalization.

Yes. I read the rest of your post. You certainly made that clear.

[rideforever]

Did I call all religous people rapists? or war-mongers? no. All I said were things that are probably true. Relgious people are delusional, All? religious people are delusional? Is that not a steroptype? and their relgioon probably causes more harm than good. ???

Delusional: To believe in something without proof.
As far as I know, there is no proof or anything near to proof that what's written in the books is true.

Earlier in this thread, I breifly explained what I mean when I say religous people cause more harm than good.