[benno]

I'm going to regret this. In fact I already am...

I hope not.

Saying something is a fairy tale is a way of denigrating it. (+ good example to support your point)

Isn't causing some level in discomfort in those you disagree with inevitable, in this case? Carson is clearly trying to wind people up. I'd hoped to explain that I wasn't seeking to do that, rather I was trying to illustrate how fantastic this stuff seems to me. If that upsets people, then my only options are to misrepresent my views or not take part at all. I went to the lengths of picking a religious story that I'm reasonably sure nobody here believes to try and avoid getting people's hackles up, but clearly I've failed. If you can think of a better phrase for "story that seems so fantastic it's obviously untrue", I'd gladly revise my wording. If even that sounds problematic, then I think the thing that's causing friction is just that we disagree.

So, in summary, whilst I agree with you that calling something a fairy tale CAN be a way of denigrating something, in this case it is not.

Hopefully to follow: some actual discussion of what (if anything) differentiates religious stories from others.

[tomtom]

Would 'largely fictional drama documentary' be a better description that fairy tale?

It sounds nicer...

[johnx2]

Carson is clearly trying to wind people up.

It was in a speech to his fellow Seventh-Day Adventists in 2012, so probably not. Whatever, the point is that to say something's like a "fairy tale" commonly used to denigrate. If you're using it to say that's how you see religious stories/beliefs you should expect it to be understood as denigrating them.

I was trying to illustrate how fantastic this stuff seems to me. If that upsets people, then my only options are to misrepresent my views or not take part at all.

Nothing wrong with upsetting people. They can always stop reading. Oh...

Hopefully to follow: some actual discussion of what (if anything) differentiates religious stories from others.

Well on the one hand, I think I can safely get away with calling Humpty Dumpty a big fat eggy bastard, whilst on the other hand today's the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo killings.

[benno]

Whatever, the point is that to say something's like a "fairy tale" commonly used to denigrate. If you're using it to say that's how you see religious stories/beliefs you should expect it to be understood as denigrating them.

I have always accepted that, hence the pained explanation of my intent at every step. Obviously I wouldn't walk into a prayer meeting and talk like that, that's not what they're there for. However, if you're having a discussion about differing religious views, then expressing your own as exactly as you can if pretty essential, no? (some participants should take note, here)

Well on the one hand, I think I can safely get away with calling Humpty Dumpty a big fat eggy bastard, whilst on the other hand today's the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo killings.

I really don't want to live in a world where the angriest people with the biggest sticks make the rules about acceptable discussion of ideas, particularly when those ideas are matters of faith, is all I can say to that. Consider my contributions to this thread my measly attempt to live by that.

[rginns]

I'm going to regret this. In fact I already am...

I hope not.

Saying something is a fairy tale is a way of denigrating it. (+ good example to support your point)

Isn't causing some level in discomfort in those you disagree with inevitable, in this case?

I'd hoped to explain that I wasn't seeking to do that, rather I was trying to illustrate how fantastic this stuff seems to me.

But if you are implying that a religion/belief system is akin to a story that isn't true I'm not sure how else it can be taken but in a negative way. I guess this has to do with identity and ideas of validity. i.e. if person A tells person B that what they believe is like a story that is not true it's like saying their beliefs don't hold validity, which in this case is, in part because fairy tales were originally devised as stories for children (with a moral attached) - or this is the generally accepted view of it.
(I realise you weren't doing this specifically, you were drawing a general comparison..)

Yep, causing some level of discomfort is certainly inevitable especially debating religion, nothing wrong with this at all, if there was no discomfort there would be no debate. Being sensitive about the way ideas are expressed comes down to personal choice.

I don't think you should mis-represent your views or take no part, these things are what makes debate all the more interesting!

[johnx2]

@benno: for sure to all that.

I was trying to pick a fight with Slackline really, to see how long I'd last before being ground down, but clearly he can't be all places and seeing everything at once. If I have an actual point it's that post-enlightenment freedoms were hard won and are worth defending. Did you hear the Charlie Hebdo guy on R4 Today this morning? I'll not link, but it was quite an affecting interview in which he made the point very clearly (possibly because speaking in English and so not using long words) that we've never in this country, unlike in France, actually separated religion from state. Hey ho.

[Doylo]

If there was a god climbing girls would have boobs.

[Moo]

Dense 2:0

Doylo 1:0

[tomtom]

Dense 2:0

Doylo 1:0

Yup - Doylo's still the base version

[lagerstarfish]

midges exist

I think that settles it

[Three Nine]

If there was a god climbing girls would have boobs.

Emma's got a sweet rack

[Oldmanmatt]

So, now we get to the real crux of human existence.

Boobs.

And midges, of course.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk