Church before state.

Originally posted by queeq
Hardly a cop out. It's just pain and simple. There are quite a number of people here that will stick to one principle, namely that nothing mentionably good or unique can come forth from religion and christianity in particular. They feel free to dismiss any arguments, proof or common sense and to start personal attacks.

So once in a while I find something interesting or have a POV on a matter, I propose it here and always, no matter what the subject is, the same type of flaming starts. For me, THAT is the real cop out. So I try at least to add something new to the debate. of course I know that chaos will rule after that, and then it's basically done. You can have a normal debate when that starts, so then all you can do is sit back and enjoy the chaos.

what is the point of this?

nobody is making that argument

that straw man seems unnecessarily divisive.

though I agree, it is pretty useless to ask you if you are a Christian, as if you are too biased to make that argument. As if we all aren't biased.

I don't see what wrong with me asking wether he was Christian.

its just moot

and queeq has done similar things in other threads when it comes to his personal identity, so likely you wont get a straight answer.

anyways, ya, sure, I think its fair enough to assume he is, as I haven't seen him deny it, however, I don't think it changes anything he said, as Christian or not, he is painting Christian philosophy in an undeservingly positive light.

It would be like someone discounting my political philosophy because I'm an anarchist. This "isms" and "ists" are really unimportant, imho.

Did anyone read the book at all? Did anyone at all look into this guy? No, everyone had their answer ready.

If you have good arguments for an anarchist approach to political philosophy, why should we ditch that because you are an anarchist? You may have very good points to make that are independent of being an anarchist. They should be addressed at face value, not dismissed because of your personal philosophies. That's what debating is about: arguments. In an ideal world. Which is not this forum.

Originally posted by inimalist
anyways, ya, sure, I think its fair enough to assume he is, as I haven't seen him deny it

😕 Are we now going to assume there's a teapot orbiting Mars because we haven't seen evidence that it isn't there?

Originally posted by queeq
Did anyone read the book at all? Did anyone at all look into this guy? No, everyone had their answer ready.

If you have good arguments for an anarchist approach to political philosophy, why should we ditch that because you are an anarchist? You may have very good points to make that are independent of being an anarchist. They should be addressed at face value, not dismissed because of your personal philosophies. That's what debating is about: arguments. In an ideal world. Which is not this forum.

I'd agree with you, and like I said, it makes no difference to me what people believe, the argument itself is the most important

and to note, you didn't mention the name of the philosopher iirc

and i think it is rather irrelevant if people already had an opinion. I don't think anyone is ignoring what you said just to rant off, and its not like this is the first time anyone has ever though of these things 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
😕 Are we now going to assume there's a teapot orbiting Mars because we haven't seen evidence that it isn't there?

fair enough

there have been many threads that have degraded into posters demanding certain info from queeq and him not providing, from trolling those I get the impression.

again, not like i think its a big deal

also, Mars isn't a sentient organism which has denied to give its take on said teapot 😉

Originally posted by inimalist

It would be like someone discounting my political philosophy because I'm an anarchist. This "isms" and "ists" are really unimportant, imho.

Yeah but im not discounting his theory because hes Christian ive already done that and ive made my arguments.. If he had said he was Christian that would have simply confirmed why he was making that argument. If he had said he wasn't Christian I would have still disregarded his argument.

Originally posted by queeq
Did anyone read the book at all? Did anyone at all look into this guy? No, everyone had their answer ready.

If you have good arguments for an anarchist approach to political philosophy, why should we ditch that because you are an anarchist? You may have very good points to make that are independent of being an anarchist. They should be addressed at face value, not dismissed because of your personal philosophies. That's what debating is about: arguments. In an ideal world. Which is not this forum.

queeq, has cracked the forum.,

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yeah but im not discounting his theory because hes Christian ive already done that and ive made my arguments.. If he had said he was Christian that would have simply confirmed why he was making that argument. If he had said he wasn't Christian I would have still disregarded his argument.

fair enough, I wont deny you your interests

I think most people see it as an in for you to dismiss the argument

I'm just saying it is irrelevant to debate

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

there have been many threads that have degraded into posters demanding certain info from queeq and him not providing, from trolling those I get the impression.

again, not like i think its a big deal

Part of the internet is that you don't have to give out personal information and polite people don't ask for it unless there's a very good reason.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, Mars isn't a sentient organism which has denied to give its take on said teapot 😉

I (a sentient being) have denied to give my opinion on teapots. Shall we assume that I have a fetish for wearing them on my ears while I make love? 313

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Part of the internet is that you don't have to give out personal information and polite people don't ask for it unless there's a very good reason.

indeed, needless to say, I was not one of those posters

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I (a sentient being) have denied to give my opinion on teapots. Shall we assume that I have a fetish for wearing them on my ears while I make love? 313

lol, yes, that seems to be fair

Originally posted by queeq
Did anyone read the book at all? Did anyone at all look into this guy? No, everyone had their answer ready.

Not yet but I will when I have the time you think people are going to drop what there doing to investigate what you said is correct. Some people might but people have things to do.

However if you are trying to say that somehow Chrisanity has done more for tolerance in society than paganism and other relgions you are probably wrong. I think alot of people when they start studying history will see that everything is not black and white and no civilisation, culture and religon has done more than other. When somebody starts saying that some religon has done more for society its very suspicious and they are entitled to be skeptical. Other people made very good arguments for there case. IF you are saying that Chrisanity somehow has done MORE than paganism or other religons I don't see what arguments you brought up.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, I wont deny you your interests

I think most people see it as an in for you to dismiss the argument

I think the only person is Sym and ive already told him 100 times ive already dismissed the argument because of what hes stated. I don't think hes got the message yet. edit: Looks like I was wrong there.

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm just saying it is irrelevant to debate

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If he had said he was Christian that would have simply confirmed why he was making that argument.

My Lord...did you go to college? Or High School even?

People don't have to be Christian to make historical arguments which are pro-Christianity, I think Queeq was right, you don't like the Christian religion and so choose to disregard the argument on that basis without doing any prior reaseach. You then wanted to identify him as a Christian so you could probably label him as biased or blinkered.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If he had said he wasn't Christian I would have still disregarded his argument.

I don't think he cares...

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
My Lord...did you go to college? Or High School even?

People don't have to be Christian to make historical arguments which are pro-Christianity,

You are stating the bloody obvious and I know that already.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I think Queeq was right, you don't like the Christian religion and so choose to disregard the argument on that basis without doing any prior reaseach. You then wanted to identify him as a Christian so you could probably label him as biased or blinkered.
[/B]

That is 100 percent complete and utter crap. Am I trying to deny that Christanity has done positive things for society? Am I trying to say that paganism superior? Am I trying to do none of these things I am simply trying to say that Christanity is as good and as bad as any other religon.
How is that baised or prejuidced?

How many times do I have to say that I had already disregarded his argument even if he had said he wasn't I would have still done so. What part of this are you not understanding?

Did you see this post?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
NOT YET but I will when I have the time you think people are going to drop what there doing to investigate what you said is correct. Some people might but people have things to do.

I am willing to do research but not now. I hope this makes things clearer.

Chaos, chaos...all I see is chaos. 😈

Originally posted by inimalist
and to note, you didn't mention the name of the philosopher iirc

True, I only mentioned him three or four times. 😕

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Not yet but I will when I have the time you think people are going to drop what there doing to investigate what you said is correct. Some people might but people have things to do.

I don't expect them to that immediately. But they do seem to have the time to go against something they haven't looked into. The interest is there to give an immediate opinion about something they care not to investigate. And lets'be fair, very few ever will.

ok, so I looked up M Lenoir...

what now?

clearly you don't expect me to read his work in detail to simply rebuff your introduction of it, nothing he has to say with regard to this is readily available on the internet, especially given that I'm not very good at speaking the French language. And sort of from a personal standpoint, the only article of his that I have read, his position for not publishing the Mohammad cartoons, seems really... I know dumb isn't a very intelligent word to use for this type of description, but ya, very dumb. Tres Drole.

Maybe i missed it, but could you link to what it is of his you want us to discuss, or do more of an in depth representation of his work, as most of the stuff of his people have responded to directly. If there is a post or a point that either needs addressing or that you think fails to address what you are saying, please point it out.

And no, just because people don't agree with it entirely does not mean that they don't understand the argument. My position is that it is too Eurocentric and paints a little rosy of a picture of Christian society. EDIT: and I get this, of course, from your representation of it. Any failure to appreciate his philosophies might be seen as your failure to communicate them.

Originally posted by queeq

I don't expect them to that immediately. But they do seem to have the time to go against something they haven't looked into.

They haven't looked into? I don't know about that autor but I bet everybody on this forum would studied Christian history and would have probably read some of the issues raised by that scholar.

Originally posted by queeq

The interest is there to give an immediate opinion about something they care not to investigate. And lets'be fair, very few ever will.

Its a disuccion forum people are supposed to give opinions. I think im gonna look him up just to porve you wrong.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
They haven't looked into? I don't know about that autor but I bet everybody on this forum would studied Christian history and would have probably read some of the issues raised by that scholar.

Its not a new idea, but in queeq's defense, it is one that gets only a little play in debate.

However, I think he is trying to say, because the origins of civil individual liberty is based on the idea of free will in christian theology, there is more civil liberty in those christian societies, which I do not agree with.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Its a disuccion forum people are supposed to give opinions. I think im gonna look him up just to porve you wrong.

I hope you speak french

Originally posted by queeq
Did anyone read the book at all? Did anyone at all look into this guy? No, everyone had their answer ready.

If you have good arguments for an anarchist approach to political philosophy, why should we ditch that because you are an anarchist? You may have very good points to make that are independent of being an anarchist. They should be addressed at face value, not dismissed because of your personal philosophies. That's what debating is about: arguments. In an ideal world. Which is not this forum.

That's the thing though, it is just assumed that such a question must be aimed at dismissing the argument. Which is a pretty unfair assumption, really.