Christmas-time is here!!

[bac0n]

Christmas was at Mom's today, and everything I got was cooking or homebrewing-related.

* 10 gallon brewkettle (w00t!)
* kickass syphon gizmo (double w00t!)
* nice serving bowls (eastern european!)
* serving spoons and serving forks (festive!)
* prep bowl set (endorsed by Mario Batali!)
* kickass collapsable collander that doubles as a devo hat (whip it!)
* Wustoff steak knives (i cut you!)

[Duncan]

Merry belated Christmas everyone!

I did ridiculously well in the gifts department. The big one was a trip to Spain and Morocco. I also got a couple of sweaters, the Late Ozu box set, enough books to last a year, and a whole bunch of smaller things.

We also had a very nice dinner with the extended family. No tensions or anything.

The God Delusion is very good, even though I had heard almost all the arguments already, and I think Dawkins over reaches himself. He also goes out of his way to antagonize, which I don't consider a very effective or convincing technique.

[Sven]

The God Delusion is very good, even though I had heard almost all the arguments already, and I think Dawkins over reaches himself. He also goes out of his way to antagonize, which I don't consider a very effective or convincing technique.

Such has always been the way of the Dawk'.

[transmogrifier]

The God Delusion is very good, even though I had heard almost all the arguments already, and I think Dawkins over reaches himself. He also goes out of his way to antagonize, which I don't consider a very effective or convincing technique.

Yes, he does, but I disagree with your conclusion. Religion relies on an unspoken subservience to the idea of protecting matters of "faith", and we live in a world where "faith" is reserved for hushed tones and bowed heads, and grunts of meek acceptance. If the religious can stand up and claim most of us are going to hell for merely being human, then Dawkins can certainly stand up and let a volley of accusations go back in the oppoiste direction. It's not pretty, but it is preferable to one side having the "moral" upperhand.

[monolith94]

The problem with Dawkins is that he characterizes all religious socities in essentially the same cast. And when you point out examples of groups that are spiritual and believe in things beyond reason and aren't the epitome of fascism, he dismisses them as inconsequential. Or whatever.

I had a great christmas, btw. Not a tremendous number of presents, but nice thoughtful ones, plus some cash. It was more important just to spend time with the extended fam.

I come from an Italian american family, so on christmas eve we had the "feast of the seven fishes". Plus our traditional christmas sauce. I like it. Makes me feel ethnic.

[Duncan]

Yes, he does, but I disagree with your conclusion. Religion relies on an unspoken subservience to the idea of protecting matters of "faith", and we live in a world where "faith" is reserved for hushed tones and bowed heads, and grunts of meek acceptance. If the religious can stand up and claim most of us are going to hell for merely being human, then Dawkins can certainly stand up and let a volley of accusations go back in the oppoiste direction. It's not pretty, but it is preferable to one side having the "moral" upperhand.

All being a shrill dick does is invite people to call you a shrill dick. It distracts from the veracity of your arguments. He goes into all your points, and I agree that people should be free to criticize religion without having to tiptoe around sensitive areas. I'd also suggest that freedom of religion should not be a right. Freedom of beliefs, sure. However, a calm, reasoned argument is almost always better than one where the other party ends up with spittle in its face. I've seen people gain the "moral upperhand" on Dawkins countless times just by pointing to his prose and then dropping a few adjectives like arrogant, condescending, bitter, vitriolic, etc. They don't even address what the guy has to say. A wave of the hand directed at his personality is all it takes to satisfy many of their constituents.

[Duncan]

...and a happy birthday to Jesus Christ, which is what Christmas is all about.

[monolith94]

Duncan. I'm not sure I understand your differentiation between freedom of religion and freedom of belief.

[Duncan]

Basically, belief requires no practices or action. Religion requires belief, and can also require practice and action. Most of the time those practices are harmless, sometimes they are brutal. So I do not think people should be free to practice religion, if that religion (or at least that version of their religion) demands brutal practices of its followers.

eg. A man in Mississauga (near where I live) recently killed his daughter for not wearing a hijab. Fuck that guy.

[dreamdead]

End haul over Christmas-time:

new laptop
car repair ($1000)
Dvds of The Tenant, A Better Tomorrow (again), and In Her Shoes (my friends like to antagonize me)
decorations for the apartment back in Illinois

[monolith94]

I see. And agree with you - obviously something like that would not be covered under "freedom of religion". I think most of what's meant by freedom of religion is the right to religious assembly, parochial schools, stuff like that.

I forgot: I also got a three month membership to the gym.

[transmogrifier]

All being a shrill dick does is invite people to call you a shrill dick. It distracts from the veracity of your arguments. He goes into all your points, and I agree that people should be free to criticize religion without having to tiptoe around sensitive areas. I'd also suggest that freedom of religion should not be a right. Freedom of beliefs, sure. However, a calm, reasoned argument is almost always better than one where the other party ends up with spittle in its face. I've seen people gain the "moral upperhand" on Dawkins countless times just by pointing to his prose and then dropping a few adjectives like arrogant, condescending, bitter, vitriolic, etc. They don't even address what the guy has to say. A wave of the hand directed at his personality is all it takes to satisfy many of their constituents.

the whole problem with this is that you are basically allowing religion to use ad hominem attacks, and instead of standing up and pointing out this intellectually vapid method of defence, you'd rather let them get away with it and ask the other side to be nice and submissive so that it can't happen. Just another example of letting religion play by its own rules.

[transmogrifier]

eg. A man in Mississauga (near where I live) recently killed his daughter for not wearing a hijab. Fuck that guy.

That sounds pretty vitriolic and combative to me. You'd best be calming yourself.

[Spinal]

Oops. Didn't mean to turn the thread into a religious discussion. Just sharing.

I've read a couple chapters of the Dawkins book and haven't found him to be shrill or unnecessarily combatative at all. On the contrary, I have found his writing to be lucid, pointed and humourous. I look forward to reading more.

[jesse]

This was the first year that I asked for--and received--"necessary" items. So I got a vacuum, dishtowels, a Rachel Ray cookbook, stuff like that. Of which I'm very pleased about.

And in a surprise twist, my parents gave my sister and I a sizable chunk of money that we now have to divide between charities of our choosing. It took me a moment, but I really like the idea now, especially since I'm so short on cash this year that I was feeling bad I wasn't able to give back...

[Duncan]

the whole problem with this is that you are basically allowing religion to use ad hominem attacks,

Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I said. Since these attacks are, unfortunately, often effective, I was suggesting a way of defusing them before they can even occur.

and instead of standing up and pointing out this intellectually vapid method of defence,

I'm trying to suggest a method of discourse in which that defense never comes up at all. Then I don't even have to bother standing up. We can just sit around and drink tea. Idealistic, sure, but almost every conversation about Dawkins (case in point) turns into a debate about the way in which he delivers his message. This can be at least partially avoided, and time can be saved. That's very valuable in a sound bite driven culture.

you'd rather let them get away with it and ask the other side to be nice and submissive so that it can't happen. Just another example of letting religion play by its own rules.

So your solution is to respond with the same intellectually vapid defense that you criticized above? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting a name calling contest. Obviously, if it comes to that, call them out on making ad hominem criticisms and avoid them yourself. I'm not saying people should be submissive when it comes to religion. I'm saying they should make well thought out, pointed criticisms that would force a religious person to at least consider the foundations of their devotion. If that leads to a loss or reconfirmation of their faith, then so be it.

[Barty]

I so want to get involved in this discussion but alas, it's not worth it. ritch:

[Duncan]

That sounds pretty vitriolic and combative to me. You'd best be calming yourself.

Well, my bluntness was meant to be humourous, but your sarcasm is appreciated. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to have an intelligent conversation with you. In fact, let's just have a sarcasm-off and see how far the debate takes us. I say we just start with your post and go from there. Think of the heights we could reach! Yep, this is certainly productive.

[transmogrifier]

Well, my bluntness was meant to be humourous, but your sarcasm is appreciated. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to have an intelligent conversation with you. In fact, let's just have a sarcasm-off and see how far the debate takes us. I say we just start with your post and go from there. Think of the heights we could reach! Yep, this is certainly productive.

Wow, I'm enraptured (pardon the pun) with your eloquent summation of our argument so far. The brilliance in which you have misread my simple remark, and given it more weight than it ever truly deserved, is a pithy case study into the exact type of argument style we both assume the more militant sectors of the religious right to use! Of course, we differ in how we must broach this given, but I am deeply enchanted by you laying it out at my feet, like pearls before swine. I'm honored to be trawling these boards with the likes of yourself, knowing that no matter where I am, someone will be there to misinterpret me.

How am I doing so far?

[transmogrifier]

I so want to get involved in this discussion but alas, it's not worth it. ritch:

Yeah, I'd win.

[Sycophant]

While out with my family for dinner one night over the weekend, I tip-adjusted.

[D_Davis]

I got the Starcraft board game and bought a bunch of books.

It was a nice Christmas.

[Mysterious Dude]

This forum has been around since 2007? Why does that make me feel old?

[lovejuice]

this will be the first christmas in maaaaaany years that i celebrate at home. :cry:

at first i thought the thread title is "christian-time is here!!!," and i'm thinking, ok, what is barty doing again?

[MadMan]

Honestly as I get older, X-Mas is a holiday I care for less and less. I still like it better than say, Easter or St. Patrick's Day, but its kind of lost its luster. I blame that on the fact that every year they seem to be extending the holiday shoping season. Eventually we'll be hearing X-Mas music being played in September :|