Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Nathan or SR:
Nathan won. 64%
SR won. 35%

Votes: 17

 Nathan VS SR? Who won the debate?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
May 02, 2002
Please be kind enough to read this thread, then vote.

Thank you,


More diaries by JoePain
First Diary
I am schizophrenic and so am I.
CNN Dot COM should get rid of Yes/No polls.


Sure, I'll vote. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by hauntedattics on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 12:19:36 PM PST
As soon as I finish my angry letter to the editor about this shameful ice skating judging scandal at the Salt Lake City Olympics. It's an outrage, I tell you! An outrage!

My confidence wained in the middle, (none / 0) (#2)
by derek3000 on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 01:27:39 PM PST
but SR discredited himself when he suggested the only way to truly learn about a religion was to practice it, then admitted to not being a member of a Coven.

And the fact that there weren't any sources other than the Book of Shadows was, well...shady.

I think this thread illustrated the difference in the leap of faith that a Christian must take as opposed to that "an ye harm none..." stuff. I used to think along those lines, but always had the feeling that it would be more complicated than that. For once, my intuition seems to be right.

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

nathan one (none / 0) (#3)
by Fon2d2 on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 03:07:36 PM PST
Well this thread didn't really start with S R really but with some anonymous Wiccan and although she had the ability to be condescending at the same time she talked about the moon and life cycles, she really didn't have anything to add to the argument. The entire argument itself feels muddy to me because it's hard to understand exactly what the people are getting at but my take on it is that nathan feels (and he expresses that this is an opinion using phrases such as "I think") that Wicca does not offer the same benefits as modern Christianity in terms of self-actualization, universal understanding, or wisdom. He is asking not only what Wicca is but what it stands for, something I would be interested to know as well. Modern Wicca as far as I can tell is much more a feel good fashion craze than any actual set of beliefs.

Somewhere along the lines the anonymous Wiccan leaves the picture and along comes S R. Now although I agree with others here that the failure of S R and others to provide nathan with any relevant source is detrimental to the argument, I would have to say where it really falls apart is over the definition of dualism. nathan specifically states that Christianity is theistically monistic. S R proceeds to argue using the definition of dualism he feels best fits his argument which is no less than taking nathan's words out of context even though nathan already provided the specific definition that was relevant to the discussion. I was surprised to see that T Reginald Gibbons, not nathan, was the one to point this out.

So in all, I don't think nathan's points were ever even addressed. Wasn't that the basis for the whole thread? How is it possible to say nathan lost?

Oops, I meant "nathan won" [n/t] (none / 0) (#4)
by Fon2d2 on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 03:08:59 PM PST

in my opinion (none / 0) (#5)
by nathan on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 07:25:00 PM PST
No argument took place. S R attempted to intimidate me with mockery, refused to provide any sources or context for his arguments, and denied my definitions (even in the face of overwhelming evidence) in order to create FUD - which, thank goodness, not too many people bought into. For the record, I am completely capable and willing to defend my claims about the intellectual flaccidity of the neo-pagan movement, and I defy all comers to make me yield an inch of sacred ground.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

What's to argue? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 11:52:32 PM PST
Wicca is clearly not a theology at all and its constant contemplation of self-gratification instead of sacrifice and misery means it isnt much of a relgion either (the ego is strictly rational and responsible for our socialization -- The City of Man, as it were. All the great religions, east and west, seek to diminish the ego and emphasize selflessness.) Wiccans, as a demographic, remind me of a trendier (read "spiritual") species of objectivist. Bottom line: we're still talking about self-absorbed youth.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to