Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,15:21)|
|While I do not agree with many of the Catholic beliefs, I would not desecrate their beliefs.|
Catholics only real problem is they follow the papacy who unfortunately support evolution over the Bible.
So for those of you who have no religious beliefs, do you believe in something else? What if those beliefs were desecrated? What would you do?
The issue that has caused me to comment is not whether or not some catholics have got upset, or have a right to be upset (they have and do if they so chose). The issue is not whether PZ's comments or that young chap's (Woods, Cook, what the bloody hell was his name again?) actions were offensive, inoffensive, rude, not-rude, tasteless or not tasteless (your decision will vary according to your subjective tastes as much as anything...how logically consistent those tastes are and your actions based on them is a different issue). The issue that concerns me is that so many people seem to be keen to "justify" (very illogically) the worst kinds of hyperbole, threats, perhaps even violence, and demonstrably terrible argumentation because they claim to be "offended" or "offended for someone else".
And to answer your question, since I don't have "beliefs" in anything like the same sense that a standard catholic belief in the sanctity of the host might be construed, feel free to go ahead an desecrate away. I expect my ideas and claims to be challenged (in a rational, evidence based way, not merely as some form of gainsaying for example). In fact I demand that they are so challenged, I desire that challenge for only under the intense scrutiny of such challenges can the ideas I have be honed to accuracy. I possess no sacred cows, no ideas that are off limits and certainly no idea that I am incapable or unwilling to defend on a rational, evidenciary basis. If it turns out that some of my ideas are wrong, as it has on the past and undoubtedly will again in the future, then I change those ideas based on the evidence.
I realise this is quite probably anathema to you, and evidently something you don't understand based on your behaviour here.
My issue with Dr GH performance on this issue is not that I disagree with his conclusions or claims per se (some of them I vehemently do as it happens, some I don't) but that I disagree with his tactics. He has seen fit to distort what other people have said, flat out lie about other people's arguments and refused to engage in something I know him to be capable of, i.e. civil, reasoned, rational discourse. Whatever his reasons for doing so, that is unacceptable, just like your own idiocy on another thread is. Not because it is offensive, far from it (it takes a monumental amount to offend me, and even then offense is no excuse for anything) but because it destroys any opportunity for anything approaching a rational discourse about any of the subjects relevant to the topic. It muddies waters that need no more muddying.