Hi there DAVID F...

I've often expressed my admiration for your obviously clear intellect and the immense knowledge you've kindly shown many of us on this Forum. But I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you've been so vigorously antagonistic towards all religion ? To a point where you seemed to have dispensed with your usually, calmly persuasive strategies, and become much more impassioned even contentious in prosecuting your position ?

By the way, I lost all my 'religiousness' in Vietnam back in 1967/68, therefore I completely agree with you. But, what would happen if we're both completely wrong, and the Christian Doctrines are utterly accurate, what then ? We'd both be buggered I reckon ?

All religions are not responsible for the Paris atrocities and nor is 'faith'. It WAS Islam. That is what the Islamic State is all about.

World-wide, millions of Muslims along with leftists who are the Muslim apologists (figure that one out!) found it very easy to find dreadful, unforgivable offence in 'anti-Muslim' books or cartoons. They were not backward in taking to the media and the streets, picketing and rioting, demanding withdrawals, apologies and in delivering dire threats (threats that strangely multiculturalist governments turn a blind eye to).

So, where is the offence where ISIS is concerned? Where is the outpouring of bile against ISIS, as there was against a harmless book and some satirical cartoons?

It is all bald-faced sophistry. The leftists, the cultural Marxists, are refusing to 'fess up to the awful unintended (unintended, one hopes !) negative consequences of their social reengineering and their stated intent to rub the noses of those 'whites' in diversity.

Something that constitutes a non sequitur, ttbn, that’s what.

<<What did I say about your misuse of the English language?>>

You implied that my use of the English language was poor because I had (supposedly) been hypocritical:

“And referring to what I say as [ad hominem] attacks, is, in itself [ad hominem]. Not to [sic] deft with language, are you?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7084#217208)

That’s a non sequitur, ttbn. I had, after all, already demonstrated a clear understanding of the term, so surely you weren't implying that I didn't know what it meant. You, on the other hand, didn't even realise that pointing out an ad hominem did not constitute an ad hominem, despite all this Latin you've apparently studied.

<<Your very hubristic claim of my dicrediting [sic] should have read: ' On the contrary, ttbn, I and others have done it a few times'. You have misused a reflexive pronoun.>>

No, “myself and others” is perfectly acceptable English. Why, there’s even a book that uses that combination of words in its title. There seems to be plenty on OLO, too, who have used that combination of words (http://tinyurl.com/odcn5ok). Are they all hypocrites too?

<<And, you and your cronies have not discredited me; you have merely disagreed with [me], which is fine.>>

When one party’s reasoning (or their rebuttals to the other party’s reasoning) is met with nothing but ad hominem attacks, it’s pretty clear that what occurred exceeded mere disagreement. Usually someone has, shall we say, had their arse handed to them and didn’t like it.

<<I also note that you get your material from such dubious, unsubstantiated sources as 'wonkypedia' and google.>>

No, they’re just convenient and for your reference. I knew much of what I’ve claimed before Wikipedia was around. Funny you should also allege this when most of what I have linked you to is scholarly and peer-reviewed. Remember? You just dismissed it all as “scentific blah” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17786#314796), and now you’re recommending “scientific blah” to me?!

Continued…

...Continued

<<If you are reliant on technical gadgets, you can still find things called 'books', written by scholars, and and critiqued by their peers.>>

FYI, journal articles are more reliable than books. Being in hard copy form is not indicative of reliability either.

<<[I] new [sic] about about ad hominem 'attacks' long before Wikipedia existed, and I did study Latin. So, while I really appreciate your provision of 'links' for my edification, I don't really need them, thankyou.>>

Well apparently you do.

By the way, pointing out the use of ad hominems does not constitute “name calling” if one can demonstrate the validity of their accusation.

Speaking of which, your entire response was once again one big ad hominem. That’s a strange sort of reply for someone who claims to have the facts on their side.

Dear o sung wu,

But, what would happen if we're both completely wrong, and the Jewish/Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/Shintoist/Sikh/Zoroastrian/Manichaean/Old Norse/Ancient Greek/Rastafarian etc. Doctrines are utterly accurate, what then ?

By what criteria can we choose one over the others? Is there any evidence for any of them? Is there any evidence that any of them are anything other than a creation of the imagination?

Is there any reason to protect any of them from cartoons, writing, analysis, criticism, ridicule etc.? There should be no Sacred Cows. No human idea should be protected from examination and challenge. Free expression should mean exactly that.

It seems to me they are all superstition. They are all based on faith in a number of unprovable propositions.

I am concerned that they do great harm. Islam is responsible for Isis and terrorism. Christianity is responsible for the Inquisition, Crusades and massacres of pagans, Jews, witches and heretics. Buddhism was the religion of the Japanese officer corps in WW2 and supplied the justification for their atrocities. Judaism sees God as a real estate dealer parcelling Middle East territory to the Chosen People. They all promote belief in fables which conflict with the scientific method which enjoins us to prove our hypotheses by evidence provided by observation and experiment. They promote seeking ‘truth’ by a mystical contact with imaginary beings.

Followers disagree with facts if they conflict with their beliefs. There is no evidence that Hitler was anything but a Christian. However, Christians don't want to believe that an evil person was a Christian so to them Hitler was not a Christian. That sort of nonsense is not restricted to believers in religion. I heard a Marxist argue that Stalin was not a Marxist. To him Marxists were good people so a bad person can't be a Marxist. My opposition to religion extends to any philosophy or ideology that is supported by nothing but faith.

There is enough conflict in the world in a contest for resources to promote further conflict in deciding between brands of mumbojumbo. Let’s grow up.

I only received this Post today, but wish to post to Davids view of Abraham.

Abraham lived in a society that sacrificed their eldest child to the fertility gods - that was normal practice in his Middle Eastern culture as atonement to the gods of fertility. Abraham at that time was following the blind faith of the polytheistic father's religion. However his mind was challenging this idea and he accepted there was only one God El Shaddai; who created and supplied all so this changed his view of reality. To sacrifice to El Shaddai meant sacrifice of an animal. Abraham was not a man of blind faith,he was a man of vision emerging out of the polytheistic religion of the Middle East. He was a thinking man challenging the practice of his father and leaving the country of his relatives. The Molech / Baal religions of the time were far worse in their human sacrifices than anything that Abraham ever did. He never murdered any man, which David likes to think he did.

David reflects his upbringing by his father,ignoring context and cultural reality.