5 ms·

These 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 anyt

These 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 ago
  Strawman. 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 ago
    This article is about a religion creating benefits for a person, but you don't want that to happen. How is that a dishonest comment?

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 ago
Strawman. 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 ago
  This article is about a religion creating benefits for a person, but you don't want that to happen. How is that a dishonest comment?