Crimes committed in the name of religious beliefs still held today

First topic message reminder :

I am currently reading The Portable  Atheist, and a chapter outlining the massive crimes committed in the pretence of witch hunting.  Truly appalling crimes that rival modern genocides. Perhaps we can examine this and other such crimes in close detail but only if the belief that caused them still exists.

polyglide wrote:As I have said previously, I do not think the Old Book of the Bible is relevant to today.          

Yes you have, and each time I asked you why if this was the case you cited text from the OT that were prejudiced against gay people? You never answered, but perhaps you'd care to now? So Genesis is irrelevant? Why do you defend the nonsense of creationism against scientifically evidenced facts then? You never did say if you're a young earth creationist, I did ask, are you?

polyglide wrote:Any crime commited by man is man's fault, the circumstances vary considerably, mn is the only creation that has real choice and he is and always has made many wrong ones.

Your religion claims a being exists that is both omnipotent and omniscient. If a being exists that is omniscient then choice would be a complete a illusion, as it would know everything that would happen before it happened. Human choice of course is a product of our evolved intellect, it is demonstrable that a being with a greater intellect possesses greater choice, if that being also possesses omnipotence then it clearly would have infinitely more choice than humans, and must therefore be more culpable for our actions that us if it created us.

Humans, like all animals are fallible. We make mistakes, and our societies evolve and shared human knowledge increases we try to correct this with our laws by striving to be more just. A perfectly just society of course is an unobtainable ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to achieve it. Religious morals have nothing about them that indicates they are derivatives of an omniscient mind, indeed much of it is morally repugnant in a contemporary setting, just a few thousand years after it was created. This of course is precisely what we'd expect the religious teachings were entirely human in origin.

polyglide wrote:To blame a religion for the wrong doing of man, is like blaming it on any scapegoat, it is the people who blame religion as an excuse that are wrong and not the religion, although I know there is only one true religion.

Men and women are religious, if they behave egregiously and cite that belief as justification for it then it's axiomatic that the religious belief is the root cause. You're again attempting to use a logically fallacious argument, a well known one called "The no true Scotsman" fallacy. I have explained how this works many times, and will again quote it here:

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")"

You cannot deny the egregious crimes religions and the religious have committed so you're introducing an arbitrary criteria to fallaciously claim that "no truly religious person" would behave precisely as they have. The problem is they are and were religious and did behave that way, so your criteria is false.

It's also worth noting that some of your posts exhibit morally dubious claims about gay people, so even if your arbitrary claim was true then your own beliefs have been no barrier to immoral behaviour.

Dr. Sheldon,
I do not remember ever saying anything about homosexuality and the Old Book of the Bible.

I do not understand your implication regarding Genesis.

I would mention null hypotheses but no doubt you would think I meant there was no such thing as hypotheses.

I have said many times I believe in evlution in the respect that living things evolve.

They do so according to changed circumstances and on occasions by other means including mutation.

I have never ever said anything differently.

This in no way explains how life came about, it is just an event that takes place because life is not now as was intended.

Man has continually attempted to improve on that which was perfect in the first place, as a result we have all kinds of different freaks of nature.

I ask you time and time again for either you or anyone else to give me step by step how a butterfly came about and there are far more complicated life cycles in nature.

Did it have one eye and decided on two and did it have one on the top of it's head and decide it was better at the side, how about the wings? did it have one on one side and two on the other for a time?

How about the actual life cycle and all that must be present at the same time and the complications involved.

Tell me how this came about by chance and random selection, then we can discuss evolution in more depth, those for and those against.

Dr. Sheldon,
I do not remember ever saying anything about homosexuality and the Old Book of the Bible.

I do not understand your implication regarding Genesis.

I would mention null hypotheses but no doubt you would think I meant there was no such thing as hypotheses.

I have said many times I believe in evlution in the respect that living things evolve.

They do so according to changed circumstances and on occasions by other means including mutation.

I have never ever said anything differently.

This in no way explains how life came about, it is just an event that takes place because life is not now as was intended.

Man has continually attempted to improve on that which was perfect in the first place, as a result we have all kinds of different freaks of nature.

I ask you time and time again for either you or anyone else to give me step by step how a butterfly came about and there are far more complicated life cycles in nature.

Did it have one eye and decided on two and did it have one on the top of it's head and decide it was better at the side, how about the wings? did it have one on one side and two on the other for a time?

How about the actual life cycle and all that must be present at the same time and the complications involved.

Tell me how this came about by chance and random selection, then we can discuss evolution in more depth, those for and those against.

Dr. Sheldon,
I do not remember ever saying anything about homosexuality and the Old Book of the Bible.

I do not understand your implication regarding Genesis.

I would mention null hypotheses but no doubt you would think I meant there was no such thing as hypotheses.

I have said many times I believe in evlution in the respect that living things evolve.

They do so according to changed circumstances and on occasions by other means including mutation.

I have never ever said anything differently.

This in no way explains how life came about, it is just an event that takes place because life is not now as was intended.

Man has continually attempted to improve on that which was perfect in the first place, as a result we have all kinds of different freaks of nature.

I ask you time and time again for either you or anyone else to give me step by step how a butterfly came about and there are far more complicated life cycles in nature.

Did it have one eye and decided on two and did it have one on the top of it's head and decide it was better at the side, how about the wings? did it have one on one side and two on the other for a time?

How about the actual life cycle and all that must be present at the same time and the complications involved.

Tell me how this came about by chance and random selection, then we can discuss evolution in more depth, those for and those against.

So you've yet again completely ignored my post, lied about what you've said, and simply repeated the same trite empty and erroneous rhetoric. What's the point. Address my post or I'll not bother responding, you can't miss it, it's right above the one you just posted.

I believe you have many many unanswered questions of mine, and until you have the decency to answer any of mine I'm disincline to go into yours, especially since I have had the decency to answer yours many times already, but you ignore this as well.

Dr, Sheldon,
It may be as well not to answer my posts, we will get nowhere when you cannot accept the truth.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                It may be as well not to answer my posts, we will get nowhere when you cannot accept the truth.

I have answered them, it's you have ignored both my answers and my questions, and I think we can all see why. Making bare claims based on faith repeatedly until everyone gets a headache is not representative of the truth. Now I started this thread, and since you're pretending to want to involve yourself in the discussion have you anything salient to the thread OP to add?

polyglide wrote:  I ask you time and time again for either you or anyone else to give me step by step how a butterfly came about and there are far more complicated life cycles in nature.

And I have answered you time and again. If I asked you to explain Einstein's theory of relativity and you couldn't do it do you really think that would invalidate it? The whole premise is too absurd, and I find it very hard to believe you can't see how silly the claim is.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: wrote:So Genesis is irrelevant?

polyglide wrote:I do not understand your implication regarding Genesis.

by polyglide Today at 6:26 pm wrote:As I have said previously, I do not think the Old Book of the Bible is relevant to today.

Does that help?

Polyglide claims that prophecy is real. Where else is he getting prophecies but from the old testament and Revelations. The claims made in the new testament are based on the fulfilled prophecies predicted in the old testament. Especially those claims relating to the divinity of jesus and his lineage.

How does such a brain work this out? He can claim that the old testament isn't relevant to today but the prophecies underpinning the new testament are relevant to his belief.

I'm probably not making myself very clear here but then the muddy thinking of the religious believer does that to me.

snowyflake,
Please do not go along the lines of Dr, Sheldon.

Let me explain matters regarding the Old Testament.

I cannot understand many parts of the above, for various reasons, one being that the times and laws etc; were entirely different, the manner of writing and expressing matters were different, so as I have said, I pay no attention to the above on the grounds that they are not relevant to me as a Christian at this time.

However, you cannot escape the fact that certain prophercies have been fullfilled and this is an aid to strengthen ones faith.

I do not feel I have to consider the above at this time, because Jesus explained the road to salvation and it was not throuhg the Old Testament Laws.

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
               Please do not go along the lines of Dr, Sheldon.

               Let me explain matters regarding the Old Testament.

               I cannot understand many parts of the above, for various reasons, one being that the times and laws etc; were entirely different, the manner of writing and expressing matters were different, so as I have said, I pay no attention to the above on the grounds that they are not relevant to me as a Christian at this time.

              However, you cannot escape the fact that certain prophercies have been fullfilled and this is an aid to strengthen ones faith.

             I do not feel I have to consider the above at this time, because Jesus explained the road to salvation and it was not throuhg the Old Testament Laws.                  

Yet you use old testament laws to uphold your bigotry of homosexuals and homosexuality. Even though you know that homosexuality is not a crime, is not a mental disorder and is not detrimental to society as a whole. Your bigotry comes from the old testament laws that say that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't.

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, Please do not go along the lines of Dr, Sheldon. Let me explain matters regarding the Old Testament.I cannot understand many parts of the above, for various reasons, one being that the times and laws etc; were entirely different, the manner of writing and expressing matters were different, so as I have said, I pay no attention to the above on the grounds that they are not relevant to me as a Christian at this time.However, you cannot escape the fact that certain prophercies have been fullfilled and this is an aid to strengthen ones faith. I do not feel I have to consider the above at this time, because Jesus explained the road to salvation and it was not throuhg the Old Testament Laws.  

Prophecies, and Snowyflake is a noun so it gets capitalised, whereas please is not so it doesn't. You've used too many apostrophes and in the wrong places in that third sentence, and the hilarity of that semi colon is clearly wasted on you as well. It's fulfilled not fullfilled (sic) good god. Tell me again about my sub-standard English linguistic skills. Hells bells.

The execrable spelling and grammar aside your claim is demonstrably wrong, it appears you have the same knowledge and grasp of scripture that you have of written English, and you seriously need to stop insulting the writing and comprehension skills of others.


Polygide "Jesus explained the road to salvation and it was not throuhg the Old Testament Laws."

Did he now.

Matthew 5:17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose"

Dear oh dear.....

snowyflake wrote:Yet you use old testament laws to uphold your bigotry of homosexuals and homosexuality. Even though you know that homosexuality is not a crime, is not a mental disorder and is not detrimental to society as a whole. Your bigotry comes from the old testament laws that say that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't.

Already called him on this repeatedly, he's ignoring it of course, and for fairly obvious reasons. Such a shocking lack of integrity, even for a christian.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

snowyflake wrote:Yet you use old testament laws to uphold your bigotry of homosexuals and homosexuality. Even though you know that homosexuality is not a crime, is not a mental disorder and is not detrimental to society as a whole. Your bigotry comes from the old testament laws that say that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't.

Already called him on this repeatedly, he's ignoring it of course, and for fairly obvious reasons. Such a shocking lack of integrity, even for a christian.

Doc, they lie to themselves, how can you expect honesty towards anyone or about anything else?

snowyflake wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

snowyflake wrote:Yet you use old testament laws to uphold your bigotry of homosexuals and homosexuality. Even though you know that homosexuality is not a crime, is not a mental disorder and is not detrimental to society as a whole. Your bigotry comes from the old testament laws that say that homosexuality is a sin. It isn't.

Already called him on this repeatedly, he's ignoring it of course, and for fairly obvious reasons. Such a shocking lack of integrity, even for a christian.

Doc, they lie to themselves, how can you expect honesty towards anyone or about anything else?

True of course, but prophercies (sic) still makes me laugh myself a stitch, probably made funnier by his supercilious attempts to derogate the English writing skills of everyone who disagrees with him.

The Dunning Kruger effect personified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"The Catholic church must apologise for its role in Rwanda's genocide"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican

"The Vatican's reluctance to confront those accused of murder in its midst is rooted in its refusal to face up to the church's complicity in the events of 1994"

"here is a Roman Catholic priest at a medieval church an hour's drive from Paris who has been indicted by a United Nations court for genocide, extermination, murder and rape in Rwanda.

Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was notorious during the 1994 genocide of 800,000 Tutsis for wearing a gun on his hip and colluding with the Hutu militia that murdered hundreds of people sheltering in his church. A Rwandan court convicted the priest of genocide and sentenced him in absentia to life in prison. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda spent years trying to bring him to trial.

But the Catholic church in France does not see any of this as a bar to serving as a priest and has gone out of its way to defend Munyeshyaka.

It's not an isolated case. After the genocide, a network of clergy and church organisations brought priests and nuns with blood on their hands in Rwanda to Europe and sheltered them. They included Father Athanase Seromba who ordered the bulldozing of his church with 2,000 Tutsis inside and had the survivors shot. Catholic monks helped him get to Italy, change his name and become a parish priest in Florence."

The article goes on...

"After Seromba was exposed, the international tribunal's chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, accused the Vatican of obstructing his extradition to face trial. The Holy See told her the priest was "doing good works" in Italy. Another Rwanda priest taken on in Italy is facing charges of overseeing the massacre of disabled Tutsi children.

The Vatican's reluctance to confront the murderers in its midst is rooted in its refusal to face up to the church's complicity in mass murder. But as Rwanda marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide, the time has come for Pope Francis to follow his own lead on paedophile priests and apologise for the part played by the clergy in turning churches into extermination centres. The Vatican should accompany a plea for forgiveness with a calling to account of priests complicit in the killing.

Advertisement

For two decades, the Vatican has maintained that, while individual clergy were guilty of terrible crimes, the church as an institution bears no responsibility. The Holy See would prefer the world to focus on the more than 200 priests and nuns killed in the genocide. But, while there is no doubt there were courageous members of the clergy, many Tutsi survivors regard the church as allied with the killers and culpability as beginning at the very top of the Catholic hierarchy in Rwanda.

Archbishop Vincent Nsengiyumva was so closely attached to the Hutu power structure that for nearly 15 years he sat in the ruling party's central committee as it implemented the policies of discrimination and demonisation that laid the ground for genocide. His political affiliations left him well placed to at least try to urge the regime to stop the killing in 1994 and to have been a strong moral voice in public against the slaughter. Instead, he was incapable even of calling the massacres a genocide let alone condemning the politicians and military officers leading them. The archbishop became so compromised that witnesses said he stood by as Tutsi priests, monks and a nun were taken to be murdered.

Many of Nsengiyumva's bishops and priests were apologists for the killers by falsely trying to pin blame for the massacres on Paul Kagame's mostly Tutsi rebel army. That sent a message to the murderers that the church was not going to judge them. Some openly said that God had abandoned the Tutsis."

Since the European court of human rights is busy trying to force the papacy and the RCC to open it's vaults and release documents that would help bring paedophile priests to justice. while the RCC is busy resisting, no doubt not motivated at all by the financial implications of many tens of thousands of victims seeking financial compensation, as if any amount of money could expunge such crimes anyway. Does anyone really trust the RCC at all anymore?

What does this say about a religion that for 2000 years has claimed moral ascendancy, and to be the sole arbiters of truth and morality? Indeed what are the wider implications for such claims from religions and the religious in general? Since the papacy's concordat with Nazism to protect the sovereignty of the church has their stock ever been any lower?

Dr, Sheldon,
You only have to look at the world today to see what mankind has reduced himself to.

Diatribes, a waste of time.

I think nearly everyone is well aware of all the implications of the present situations world wide and also the history of the majority of religions.

I do not recognise any present day main line church as being representative of God.

Every one has compromised every time to stand fast would result in the loss of the congregation.

So you are not talking about God and the church, you are talking about those who have betrayed everything God stands for and has nothing to do with Christianity.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You only have to look at the world today to see what mankind has reduced himself to. Diatribes, a waste of time. I think nearly everyone is well aware of all the implications of the present situations world wide and also the history of the majority of religions. I do not recognise any present day main line church as being representative of God. Every one has compromised every time to stand fast would result in the loss of the congregation. So you are not talking about God and the church, you are talking about those who have betrayed everything God stands for and has nothing to do with Christianity.

We're all aware of your opinions here, they're not very compelling I'm afraid, what you're doing again is employing a logical fallacy called "No true Scotsman".

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing")"

I believe I have explained this already several times. It's spurious reasoning to simply try and dissociate every egregious act committed by the religious and by religions, by claiming they're not really religious. The idiocy of such an obviously fallacious claim shouldn't really need explaining, let alone need to be explained repeatedly. An expert debater would never use such a well known logical fallacy, food for thought...

polyglide wrote:So you are not talking about God and the church, you are talking about those who have betrayed everything God stands for and has nothing to do with Christianity.

I am not talking about god because god doesn't exist, so blaming a non-existent god would be fairly meaningless. I am talking about the church and about religions and the religious generally, and simply claiming billions of theists are not true theists, but you are, speaks for itself really. Besides your own beliefs have motivated you to make some fairly morally egregious claims and statements on here, most especially to espouse homophobia. Religious persecution of and discrimination against gay people is long-standing, and continues to this day, and you yourself have claimed them to be unnatural, abnormal, perverted deviants, maybe you should address that appalling behaviour instead of trying to take the moral high ground here, as I don't think those posts or your general behaviour to other posters gives you any right to it.

Now have you any thoughts about the RCC's complicity in hiding those members of it's clergy that are implicated in genocide and child abuse? Other than the absurd idea this means they can be dismissed as not really being christians, a handy little bit of subjective reasoning that would mean only all christians are decent and good by default as anyone not decent or good will be excluded from this demographic by you. No true Scotsman fallacy to the rescue.

Dr, Shaldon,
Will you please just for once not attempt to mind read, you are not very good at understanding the written word never mind anything else.

I have very clearly detailed my belief regarding homosexuality and your obvious obcession with this matter gives me great concern regarding your own views, to date which you have not expressed.

In my opinion, to which I am entitled just as you are to yours and which you often express in vulgar terms:

I feel you are a muddled individual.

For instance, are you a closit homophobic.

A homosexual.

Or have no real opinion other than to decry others who attempt to consider all the relative facts, in any debate both the tasteful and distasteful must be considered or the matter is a nonsense.

To accuse one of immorality on the grounds you attempt to do proves you are unfamiliar with the above.

I am a full blown hetrosexual and am perfectly willing to admit it and I also have no problem with homosexuality, that in no way changes the relative facts.



You are either a closet homophbic

Two blatant lies in the same post. I'll respond first then report the second as you've had adequate warnings.

The views you have expressed on gay people are in several different threads, you have repeatedly referred to gay people as unnatural, abnormal, perverted and deviant. So your tantrum is inexplicable.

I have from the outset and more than once given my view in line with all the current scientific and medical evidence that homosexuality is a normal natural variation of human sexual desire. As such they deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

Your pathetc attempt to accuse me of being gay in an attempt to derogate speaks for itself.

You still haven't said if you have told your gay "friends " that you think they are unnatural abnormal perverted deviants as you have repeatedly claimed on here? I think it's safe for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Dr. Sheldon,
As usual you accuse me of something based on the inability to understand what is said and requested.

All I have done in a reasonable manner is request exactly where you stand on this isssue, all that was needed was a honest answer.

As usual you cannot give one.

At no time have I ever said anything against homosexuality or homosexuals.

When discussing a topic all that it involves is open to debate, what you want is to just to have included what you want.

You would be well advised to understand this and just put forward your opinions and leave others to theirs.

Homosexuality is described in clear terms in many instances and is relative to an interpretation accepted by the majority, ask a million people, not if they either agree or disagree with it but if they feel it is normal.

If you cannot understand others views it should be you who leaves the site.

polyglide wrote: All I have done in a reasonable manner is request exactly where you stand on this isssue, all that was needed was a honest answer.

Your post contained no questions. A question ends with a question mark, did you not know this?

polyglide wrote:  Homosexuality is described in clear terms in many instances and is relative to an interpretation accepted by the majority, ask a million people, not if they either agree or disagree with it but if they feel it is normal.

If you cannot understand others views it should be you who leaves the site.

You can't simply claim to share the majority opinion without evidence. I have shown that your definitions were not the dictionary definitions as you claimed. Posted the OED definition and a link..

I offered all the current scientific and medical evidence which shows your claims were entirely incorrect. i offered links to currebt research showing the opinions of every major world health and scientific organisations refuted your claims.

My own opinion was not offered without evidence, where as your opinion was offered entirely without evidence. It is you who is failing to understand what has been said, again I'm afraid.

polyglide wrote:
I am a full blown hetrosexual  and am perfectly willing to admit it and I also have no problem with homosexuality, that in no way changes the relative facts.

Ah. You are indifferent as to the sexual preferences of whoever is performing oral stimulation upon you.

Norm Deplume wrote:

polyglide wrote:
I am a full blown hetrosexual  and am perfectly willing to admit it and I also have no problem with homosexuality, that in no way changes the relative facts.

Ah. You are indifferent as to the sexual preferences of whoever is performing oral stimulation upon you.

I was going to make a joke about a partly blown heterosexual, but thought better of it. Wish I had now though.

Can some explain to me what a closit is?

Dr, Sheldon,
Can some explain to me what a closit is?

Can someone explain to me what the above means.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Can some explain to me what a closit is?

                Can someone explain to me what the above means.  

Yes I can. It's a question asking what closit means. You used this word closit in your post. I've never heard of it.

Dr, Sheldon,
It is a cupboard with a closed door, I may have the spelling wrong and is used to exlpain that which is is hidden.

polyglide wrote:At no time have I ever said anything against homosexuality or homosexuals.

polyglide wrote:
Homosexuality is abnormal in every respect of the word accepted by the vast majority of people, to attempt to disguise the fact is a none starter. You could make the same for murder, wife beating and child abuse, just because you think homosexuality does not harm anyone does not alter the FACTS.

polyglide wrote:
Homosexuality offers nothing other than self gratification, it offers nothing to the well being of society.

polyglide wrote:
There is actually hope, there are methods being developed that can illiminate any gene from future generations and if there is a gene that provides the homosexual factor then, perhaps in the future there will be no debate neccesary.

polyglide wrote:
Consent does not change anything. Of course it does harm. Just consider if everyone was homosexual. .

polyglide wrote:
snowyflake, If I think homosexuality is abnormal and that is homophobic, then you are right, , If I feel the world would be better if there was no homosexuals, I do, and that is homophobic, then I hold my hands up. As I have stated previously, the only thing homosexuality offers to society is self gratification.

I couldn't be bothered to keep going back, but that's just the last two pages in this thread.

polyglide wrote:
snowyflake, If I think homosexuality is abnormal and that is homophobic, then you are right, , If I feel the world would be better if there was no homosexuals, I do, and that is homophobic, then I hold my hands up. As I have stated previously, the only thing homosexuality offers to society is self gratification.

Do you not see that this is unkind, judgemental and about as unchristlike as you can get?

I feel sorry for your homosexual 'friends'. They'd abandon you in heartbeat if they knew your true feelings about them. Oh that's right, you don't tell them do you because honesty is another moral characteristic that seems to have bypassed you.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:-
I think it's safe for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

In a nutshell. As Barack Obama said: “When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t have to do anything, you just let them talk.”

I hope this doesn’t sound patronising, it isn’t meant to be. It’s good to see a lively discussion taking place here, and nobody needs to leave the site, but it’s a pity when people allow their understandable frustrations to get out of control. I have to confess that I haven’t always been polite when Tories have posted absurdities and downright lies on the UK politics board, so I do know how difficult self-restraint can be at times. If you find something annoying, or even ridiculous, always try to rebut it politely and leave others to decide who is ‘right’. Alternatively, you can ignore such posts, although I accept that if you do that too often there won’t be much of a discussion!

I don’t think it helps to enhance any argument if you pick up a partially sighted person over their spelling and/or grammar. I suspect that if we look closely at all of our posts we will find the occasional typo (such as "currebt research"), or maybe a misplaced apostrophe from time to time. Even if a post is badly written, it doesn’t necessarily make it ‘wrong’, though it may make it appear less convincing to many people.

Personally, I’m slightly bewildered as to why nearly every thread on this board ends up being about homosexuality. The vast majority of people in the UK now either approve or accept equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to marry. You have to go to places such as Iran or land controlled by Islamic State if you want to see homosexuals murdered, or to Russia, some African countries or Republican-controlled parts of the US Mid West if you want serious discrimination. Fortunately, the UK has moved on from the barbarity advocated in the Old Testament.

As most of us here find homosexuality acceptable, is it really such an insult to be called gay even if you’re not? I’d be far more offended if someone called me a Tory! It’s quite obvious who on this board is homophobic - and who isn’t – so can’t we just subscribe to what Barack Obama said and let readers of these threads “draw their own conclusions”?

Thanks for your continued support of this forum. Enjoy your posting.  

Thank you Ivan, I agree about people trying to use the accusation of being gay as a derogation, I simply am not insulted by it. Though I am wary of ignoring it completely as the intent itself is to use homophobia as an insult. I hope that makes sense.

As you say it's all too easy to get caught up in the heat of a discussion and lose sight of the actual thread topic. For that reason I like the fact that the first post and title reminder are at the top of each page. I agree about your point on picking out typos and grammar oddly enough, but when someone sententiously questions the writing and English comprehension skills of people all the time I tend view such mistakes in their posts as fair game, though I will take your point on board as it doesn't help the debate flow.

Thanks, Doc. That does make sense.  

I was wondering if this quote has ever been used on this board.....  

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." (Stuart Chase)

Or is it a conversation stopper?

It's a good quote, and perhaps very true, but there's always more to discuss I feel. Epistemology is a concept I struggle with, and as I have no formal training or education in philosophy or logic I have to try and muddle through these concepts as best I can, but whenever someone is silly enough to claim to be 100% certain about anything i allow myself a little chuckle as I have at least managed to learn enough to avoid making that mistake.

I remember a discussion in another forum where a theists suggested my "bias" meant I would never accept the "truth". The odd thing is despite his obviously subjective use of truth I was forced to admit that hypothetically if god presented himself to me I'd probably question my sanity before I'd accept that an omnipotent omniscient creator of everything was taking time out to convince me that he started his grand plan by visiting bronze age Bedouins with ludicrous tales of talking snakes or flying horses.

Anyway it's bed for me for now, work at 6 tomorrow unfortunately.