11 March 2013

Combox Fun

I occasionally like to have fun with comments in the combox. Unfortunately. I get almost no comments, so I have to borrow from others.  Here is a comment from someone proudly and bravely proclaiming their courage and indivuality under the uncompromising name of Anonymous who left a comment over at Vox Cantoris. 

All I can say is that this is such bull shit(sic)! It really is!
Never heard that one before.  Normally, unoriginality is not that important in an argument.  If something is true, it remains true whether spoken once or spoken a thousand times.  But a good debater, or someone who is good at making an argument can make an old argument new by making it uniquely their own.  Let's see what Anonymous does with this one.

Religion is brainwashing and corrupt,(sic) we do not need to live in the world of dogma,
Condemning dogma with a dogmatic statement.  Very good.  As for religion being 'brainwashing' and corrupt, let's see where they go with that.

of right and wrong,
So we don't need right and wrong, then there need not be such a thing as a right thing and a wrong thing, yet, at one and the same time, and within the same statement, Religion is a very wrong thing.  Dear anonymous: if there is no right and wrong, then there is no way for religion to be wrong, and no grounds upon which to condemn it as such.  But please, continue.

of sinners and saints.

Also known as "people". 

Just love your self, love the one you married, teach your children to be honest, forthright, loving and genunine(sic).
You have rejected religious precepts, and yet you hold these up as guidelines to life.  Tell me, what relativist philosophy has given you these guidelines for life? Upon what purely rational basis are they founded?  These are nothing but religious principles, founded in the Judeo Christian religion. 

I have met so many judgemental catholicas, (sic)

And now we judgementally judge judgemental Catholics.  Since this whole piece is judgemental, I imagine judgement is a virtue when used by anyone other than Catholics, or better, when it is used against them.

I am baptised a catholic, but I have no resepct(sic) for your controlling religion.
 I always get a laugh when people refer to our religion as controlling.   The Church has a set of rules, which we are free to obey or not. I suppose it gives them a greater sense of self esteem to think that they somehow broke free from the shackles of... a bunch of suggestions.

I am a good person, faithful in my marriage (and many of you are not)!
Okay:  At first we were condemned for blindly following the tenets of our religion, now we are condemned for not blindly following the tenets of our religion.  Clearly, consistency is not this person's forte.  Witness the next statement:
I am happy, respectful and I do not need to follow your pathetic guidelines!
Readers, here is your assignment, to reconcile these phrases:  "I have no resepct(sic)" and "I am happy, respectful" and "your pathetic guidelines!"  They have no respect, yet are respectful, but show no respect to our "pathetic guidelines."  Also, notice how they have just recognized that our horrible mindcontrol power boils down to a set of guidelines.

I wish people would wake up and have a mind of their own!
Here's another that I hear all the time from the new atheist crowd.   They all think for themselves, in exactly the same way.  So, what would waking up and thinking for ourselves look like?  Let's see if we can find out.

Do not listen to a priest, this priest is a joke (sic). I would be ashamed to be associated with his church, or any controlling organization that he belongs too.
Back with the controlling organization to which this priest belongs.  Control, guidelines, control... Background on this can be found at Vox: long and the short of it, a priest sent a letter home with some Catholic school children inviting their parents and families to return to the Church.  The letter included an examination of conscience so those who had been away could confess and reconcile themselves to God.  Some parents were offended.  At any rate, what this person refers to as control was an invitation, as if an invitation to a dinner, or a movie, or a party, was an attempt at control.

I choose to be my own person,
By now, I think I've made my point about this writer's ability to think for themself.

I speak my feelings with out(sic) fear,
As can be seen by the name "Anonymous".

with out(sic) control, organized religion is fading and they can't come to grips with that!
This person does indeed speak without control, including the control of spelling, grammar, and logic.  This should have been two sentences, not one.  As it stands, it is a huge non- sequitor.  Is organized religion fading?  In some places, yes, but in other places, due to efforts like those of this priest, it is growing.  Who is it that cannot come to grips with that?

Be your own person and stand up for your self(sic)! Following religion is sheep mentality. Do you teach your children to be individuals, do you teach them to not follow the crowd?
Hmmm, good question.  Right now, where I am, where I live and where my children (elder, in particular) go to school, the crowd is swinging to atheism.  Following the Church is most definitely going against the crowd.  At her Catholic school, the sheep are those who are leaving. It is believers who are moving against the crowd.
If so how can you teach them to believe in such a hypocritical religion?
If this person wants to claim the Faith to be hypocritical, they have given no evidence.  However, they have given copious evidence of their own hypocrisy.

I ask you to ask your self(sic) do you want to be a leader or a follower?
Hmmm.  Be a leader or a follower? Are those the only choices?  Assuming they are the only choices, then what they are saying is: if I follow what this person is saying and abandon religion like they did, because they implore me to do so, then I would be a leader, but if I reject what they are saying and decide to continue in my faith, then I am a follower?
Religion is corrupt!
And you know it because I put an exclamation point on it! Only really real statements make use of the exclamation point! I've also repeated it, so it really is true, because repetition makes it so! It seems that most of this person's arguments depend on exclamation points and repetition.  They certainly don't give anything in the way of actual reasons.

Notice this: they have accused religion of being controlling, and have spoken against what they believe is an example of the Church's attempt to control, and called the Church hypocritical because of it.  However, assuming this person is right (which I do not, but anyway) then that is consistent, not hypocritical.  They have, however, provided ample evidence of their own hypocrisy and blindness, though they see it not.   It is as John Milton wrote:

For neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible, except to God alone.

It is also as Inigo Montoya says:  You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

Lastly, if you wish to go on-line and brag about how you think for yourself, it would be wise to at some point show some evidence that you are capable of thinking at all.

No comments: