(Alas, the files I need for the next part of the assmebly language project will not be forthcoming for a while...)
Okay. I'm not sure actually *revelling* in someone's death is really an appropriate thing, even if they're an enemy you've killed with your own hands.
But I'm not sure Rev Dark could really be said to be doing that. Mostly his original post seems to boil down to thinking the world will be a better place without Falwell in it. And we all seem to agree that he was a lunatic, though at least one thing he's said kind of brings up an interesting theological logic puzzle...
On the other hand, I'm also not sure why the idea of a " post-mortem period of respect" has everyone so upset. Particularly I fail to see the need for implying that Fidoohki is feebleminded and delusional, or for bringing religous beliefs into what's really an issue of social courtesy. After some of these, I don't think Rev Dark has any room to be calling Fidoohki on name calling... especially when Fidoohki had previously acknowledged and apologized for using "racist" inappropriately.
Now, since religion has been dragged into this...
Rev, I'm not sure whether to think you're an atheist or not. The whole "want evidence" idea does seem more similar to agnosticism. The dictionary definitions of atheist are a bit vague about whether they would include any of that. Of course, most times when I've heard the term agnostic used, it refers to someone who *does* believe that some sort of deity exists, just that they don't claim to know it's nature. Connotations make everything more difficult...
On the other hand, much of what you write sounds as though you believe the absence of proof of the existance of a god as being equivalent to proof that none exist. I don't really consider that a reasonable assumption, as one would expect an inactive or subtle god to produce the same amount of evidence as a nonexistant one - ie, no evidence at all.
-Morgan, overuses elipses...
"So, you're walking around wearing a skirt and no underwear... but *I* am the pervert?"
Okay. I'm not sure actually *revelling* in someone's death is really an appropriate thing, even if they're an enemy you've killed with your own hands.
But I'm not sure Rev Dark could really be said to be doing that. Mostly his original post seems to boil down to thinking the world will be a better place without Falwell in it. And we all seem to agree that he was a lunatic, though at least one thing he's said kind of brings up an interesting theological logic puzzle...
On the other hand, I'm also not sure why the idea of a " post-mortem period of respect" has everyone so upset. Particularly I fail to see the need for implying that Fidoohki is feebleminded and delusional, or for bringing religous beliefs into what's really an issue of social courtesy. After some of these, I don't think Rev Dark has any room to be calling Fidoohki on name calling... especially when Fidoohki had previously acknowledged and apologized for using "racist" inappropriately.
Now, since religion has been dragged into this...
Rev, I'm not sure whether to think you're an atheist or not. The whole "want evidence" idea does seem more similar to agnosticism. The dictionary definitions of atheist are a bit vague about whether they would include any of that. Of course, most times when I've heard the term agnostic used, it refers to someone who *does* believe that some sort of deity exists, just that they don't claim to know it's nature. Connotations make everything more difficult...
On the other hand, much of what you write sounds as though you believe the absence of proof of the existance of a god as being equivalent to proof that none exist. I don't really consider that a reasonable assumption, as one would expect an inactive or subtle god to produce the same amount of evidence as a nonexistant one - ie, no evidence at all.
-Morgan, overuses elipses...
"So, you're walking around wearing a skirt and no underwear... but *I* am the pervert?"