3 ms·
> At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. So now you see how it wasn't an argument?
by throwawaylinux 5y ago
> At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying.
So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! So they expect me to guess and construct an argument for them, and then refute it? Rubbish.
> Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must
question how weekends could come about in such a system,
Why must one question that? My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". So this is just a bad strawman.
> considering they likely started as a religious observance.
If we were to change topic completely and argue about the origin of 5 day working week and other workplace health and safety reforms, I really don't know enough of the history of it. I have no problems acknowledging and being thankful for good things that religion has brought (if religion was responsible for the weekend, great that people had the sense to take my position on the matter and not restrict the weekend to religious people). However I would be slightly curious why it happened to come about right around the time of rising power of the labor movement in the west, and not any other time in the several millennia of these religions before then. Maybe just a coincidence. But either way I don't really care, I like weekends and I don't want them restricted to people with particular beliefs, so that's +1 for my argument.
- ironmagma 5y agoGenerally speaking, when good things have to be imported from the past, that’s a sign the present is broken. The old things are still seen as good, so why couldn’t they be created today? Why should we not allow new advancements? If a religion has a good idea, people in that religion should be allowed to experiment with it. Maybe it will turn into something that can benefit society at large.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoThese are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics. I'd be happy to come back and respond to something substantial but obviously I'm not going to keep going down this path.
- ironmagma 5y ago> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to. > So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that sparked a lot of debate within a community. Simply because it is not an argument does not mean it's lazy or not to be responded to. > Why must one question that? I find this an odd question to hear on a forum full of skeptics... IMO, we should question everything. It's just the best way to engage with a world full of misleading appearances. > My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". But if you derive benefit from something created by religion, it is somewhat hypocritical to want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoStrawman. I don't want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people. At this point we're both wasting each other's time here so that's it from me responding to these dishonest comments.
- ironmagma 5y agoThis article is about a religion creating benefits for a person, but you don't want that to happen. How is that a dishonest comment?