ginnyfizz Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 It is possible to be passion filled and emotional as well as logical, they are not mutually exclusive. As plenty of leaders of humanity have proved. You sure ain't going to set any debating chambers alight with just logic, that's for sure. You might send folk to sleep though. How can you possibly despise, for example, the passionate belief in his cause of Martin Luther King? A cause for which he died, but which ultimately achieved at least some of its goals by the combination of the power of his oratory in getting the message across, and the shrewd, and yes logical, method of peaceful protest (which drew attention to the cause and gained sympathy because it was based on avoiding harming the people they needed to win over). Practical logic, not verbose logic. Oh, and religious debates are banned,so why segregate those who believe? (I believe the above gentleman had a dream about that, no segregation for ANY reason....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 It is possible to be passion filled and emotional as well as logical, they are not mutually exclusive. As plenty of leaders of humanity have proved. You sure ain't going to set any debating chambers alight with just logic, that's for sure. You might send folk to sleep though. How can you possibly despise, for example, the passionate belief in his cause of Martin Luther King? A cause for which he died, but which ultimately achieved at least some of its goals by the combination of the power of his oratory in getting the message across, and the shrewd, and yes logical, method of peaceful protest (which drew attention to the cause and gained sympathy because it was based on avoiding harming the people they needed to win over). Practical logic, not verbose logic. Oh, and religious debates are banned,so why segregate those who believe? (I believe the above gentleman had a dream about that, no segregation for ANY reason....) Like I said, I wasn't intending to make a real point about emotion vs logic, it was apparently a not-very-funny joke. The reason I would "segregate" the debates section into theist and atheist sections is because those are the questions that all debates eventually boil down to. It is because religious debate is banned that the sections would be better off segregated. If I want to debate love, someone is going to say that love comes from the soul. Suddenly, I can't debate their point anymore because it's a banned discussion. If I want to debate drugs, someone is going to bring up morality, which I can't debate because their morality implies the existence of a god, which I cannot debate. Everything is linked to this one debate, which is explicitly verboten. Basically, until this problem is eliminated, all we are doing is treading water; an exercise in tantric debating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 It is possible to be passion filled and emotional as well as logical, they are not mutually exclusive. As plenty of leaders of humanity have proved. You sure ain't going to set any debating chambers alight with just logic, that's for sure. You might send folk to sleep though. How can you possibly despise, for example, the passionate belief in his cause of Martin Luther King? A cause for which he died, but which ultimately achieved at least some of its goals by the combination of the power of his oratory in getting the message across, and the shrewd, and yes logical, method of peaceful protest (which drew attention to the cause and gained sympathy because it was based on avoiding harming the people they needed to win over). Practical logic, not verbose logic. Oh, and religious debates are banned,so why segregate those who believe? (I believe the above gentleman had a dream about that, no segregation for ANY reason....) Like I said, I wasn't intending to make a real point about emotion vs logic, it was apparently a not-very-funny joke. The reason I would "segregate" the debates section into theist and atheist sections is because those are the questions that all debates eventually boil down to. It is because religious debate is banned that the sections would be better off segregated. If I want to debate love, someone is going to say that love comes from the soul. Suddenly, I can't debate their point anymore because it's a banned discussion. If I want to debate drugs, someone is going to bring up morality, which I can't debate because their morality implies the existence of a god, which I cannot debate. Everything is linked to this one debate, which is explicitly verboten. Basically, until this problem is eliminated, all we are doing is treading water; an exercise in tantric debating.But morality can also be explained through the evolution of human psychology over time... There is a reason why certain things are banned from the forums, there is generally a more logical conclusion. Shouldn't of even pointed that out though I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 But morality can also be explained through the evolution of human psychology over time...That's an interesting position that I would love to debate sometime. But at any rate, I'm pretty much positive that this separation won't ever actually happen in the forum, so discussing it is kind of a moot point. But it was kind of fun to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 What about the agnostics? Would you have a forum for them as well? :D :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) What about them? Agnostics believe in something, but they don't know what that thing is.Atheism is not the disbelief of a god or gods, Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, anything that is not this, is not atheism. Edited August 24, 2011 by draconix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) What about them? Agnostics believe in something, but they don't know what that thing is.Atheism is the belief that there are no gods, anything that is not this, is not atheism. I would really love to respond to this, but, that would drag this thread even further off-topic than it already is. :D Ok, edited by special request. :D Well, we are talking two forums, on for believers, and one for non-believers. Agnostics don't really fall into either category. While they may believe in something, chances are, it would not find acceptance amongst the believers, nor would their views always run along the same lines as the nons. Actually, the original statement was fairly tongue in cheek. I just couldn't find the :poke: emoticon. :D Edited August 24, 2011 by HeyYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 (edited) Oh discordians or chaos magicians? On any given day they could be a theist or a skeptic. editing in smilies.. :rolleyes: :wallbash: :psyduck: :unsure: :teehee: Edited August 24, 2011 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The way this is going its going to get locked soon, but I will make one last post on the subject. Seeing as agnostics don't strictly believe in a god(s) or are not sure, that would mean they are not a theist. Not being a theist is what a atheist is. So agnostics are still atheists, they are just a different type of atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The way this is going its going to get locked soon, but I will make one last post on the subject. Seeing as agnostics don't strictly believe in a god(s) or are not sure, that would mean they are not a theist. Not being a theist is what a atheist is. So agnostics are still atheists, they are just a different type of atheist. Erm, anyone that isn't a theist, is therefore an atheist? Terribly sorry, but, I disagree. See my above post relating to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts