I Hate Rev. Fred Phelps

how do you know? (this is a fun game, innit?)

^That statement seriosuly made my morning.

ergo, freedom is bad

laws oppress peoples freedom.

notice how many of the most religious states are the most oppressed states

notice how many of the most oppressed states are islam. therefore islam is somehow worse than all other religions.

dont kill? wtf i do what i want

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Most religions rules (the "main" ones anyway, that you are sort of expected to follow - disregarding retarded things like omg no condoms) have been designed that if followed will permit everyone to have the greatest amount of freedom possible, and fit within the norms of society at the time they were made. You could argue that the norms have changed, and with these (some of) the rules should be revised, but this is more an argument about organised religion being stodgy and outdated (and who would disagree with that?), rather than it being some sort of oppressive force.

i'm not having a go at a specific religion, just religion in general and anyway i'm guessing you're christian, look at middle aged to 18th century england/europe and the oppression there form the church and crown. or does history start for you when america won the war of independence and then follow a biased, ancient, propaganda whatever to make america 'great'. assuming that's where you're from.

You make a great deal of assumptions that appear to be baseless.
I wasn't having a go at any specific religion either, just using your reasoning to come to a conclusion that most people would agree is an incorrect one.

I'm questioning your argument because I find it flawed and non-sensical, not because of any belief system I may or may not hold true.

OTM. But have we reached the point we religion is not needed to keep people civilized? Isn't there still a great fear of punishment from above that keeps people from committing crimes they could surely get away with?

I'm not arguing anything like that, I'm using them as silly examples to show why your reasoning doesn't make sense.

Your point: Wars have been fought under the banner of religion, [therefore religion is bad]
My (silly) counter-example: Wars have been fought under the banner of freedom, therefore freedom is bad

Your point: Religion oppresses peoples freedom. you cannot do this...etc, [therefore religion is bad]
My counter-example: The law oppresses peoples freedom. you cannot do this...etc, therefore the law is bad

Your point: Many of the most religious states are the most oppressed states, [therefore religion is bad]
My counter-example: Many of the islam states are the most oppressed states, therefore islam is bad

The way a counter-example works is by taking your argument and changing one of the premises into something silly. the conclusion would hold true if your argument was correct, resulting in whatever silly conclusion is above (freedom is bad etc). if you disagree with the conclusion i come to, then by default you disagree with your own argument, unless i have twisted your argument in some way (i hope i haven't). i havent argued anything myself, i have pointed out where i think your argument goes wrong.

You have a pretty narrow view of religion.

ps http://unfunf.netfirms.com/rolleyes.gif

One would assume they either don't believe in the power from above, or don't care.

so how can you effectivly argue against something when you're not on a side?

I am "arguing against" your argument. I would say that puts me on the side of truth. Come up with arguments I can't fault and I will agree with you. Since you seem so keen to bring me into this, I am vaguely religious, in that I concede there could be some sort of higher power there, but I am very sceptical of organised religion etc.

if that's what you're getting at.

Webber, by attacking ea. of his points individually you are 'winning' logically, but realistically your not disproving the points he made. Now, if he said religion is bad ONLY because wars have been fought because of it, that's one thing, but that statement is only part of his argument and just one reason why he thinks religions are bad. The sum of his argument is greater than ea. part taken individually. For example, if I say Jaguars are bad cars because there too expensive, it's not really a fair argument to say Porsches must be bad as well since they're expensive, too. That's just one facet that contributes to why they suck.

His argument is made up of a number of premisses. If any of those are proven to be false, they can't contribute to that argument. Take your car example: this proves you cant single out one brand of car because they are expensive if others are expensive. you can't use that in an arguement. if it influences the conclusion, then the conclusion is false because the premiss is false. if it does not influence the conclusion, why include it in the argument at all?

Yes, but it can be used in conjunction w/other factors. Such as it's expensive and it doesn't perform as well as other cars of its price, ie it's a bad value. Compared to all cars regardless of price, it performs well, so you can't criticize its performance alone. Performance and price have to be looked at together to assess the car. Taken singly, there's nothing wrong w/either the performance or price, but taken together the car can be shown to be inferior. Get it?

This is awesome and makes me really proud of Americans even if I don't support the war.

devastating read...essay on growing up under fred phelps reign of terror by his son, nate phelps

http://natephelps.com/10801.html

really really really recommended

quality: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/